1. If you really want to get into rules lawyering, the guideline was arguably broken when "mugging" was substituted for "theft" a few comments up. That most cer

1. If you really want to get into rules lawyering, the guideline was arguably broken when "mugging" was substituted for "theft" a few comments up. That most certainly is not "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says". In fact it's the opposite. Therefore calling out "mugging" =/= stealing isn't "bad faith argument". 2. The original claim is "There are universal truths". Substituting that for "There are universal truths in every circumstance" isn't "strongest plausible interpretation", it's changing the argument entirely and attacking a strawman. It's like claiming "a^2 + b^2 = c^2 holds for right angle triangles", someone else objecting "yeah but it doesn't hold for all triangles", and then invoking "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" when he's called out for changing the claim.