5 ms·

I refuse to play these games. If you wish to make the argument that universal healthcare (including cheap or free ambulance coverage at point of use) necessaril

I refuse to play these games. If you wish to make the argument that universal healthcare (including cheap or free ambulance coverage at point of use) necessarily leads to financial ruin you are free to make that argument, along with all the necessary support such a position requires. If you do not wish to do so, then I have no issues and thus decline to make any argument otherwise. I am not obligated to make your argument for you, and I am not inclined to calibrate your motte-and-bailey merely because you feel like interjecting your support for a position you would call a strawman when called out.

refurb 3mo ago
> I am not obligated to make your argument for you Are you just uncomfortable with debate? How do you debate the merits of the argument without defining the terms being used?
- Alpha3031 3mo ago
  No, I just don't see any point in debating anything when you presumably agree that nobody is being bankrupted by free ambulance rides given that you called it a strawman. If you wish to defend what you called a strawman, which I didn't think people normally did in good faith but could be convinced otherwise, then I am willing to let you set the definitions you wish and make a case, as is standard for those instigating a discussion, while reserving the right to decline further participation if my disagreement with the position is below a certain threshold and/or any other reason I might find the discussion unproductive.
  - refurb 3mo ago
    I never said no one would be bankrupted by ambulance fees. We’re talking about financial ruin of the government.
    - Alpha3031 3mo ago
      I really don't see the point of playing these word games. I had assumed you meant the government, yes.
      - refurb 3mo ago
        Clarifying definition is not a "word game". You seem quite uncomfortable debating the facts, and that's ok.
        Alpha3031 3mo ago
        I am not interested in discussing "facts" with someone who has yet to acknowledge their motte-and-bailey, which for obvious reasons does not engender a reasonable expectation that such a discussion would be approached in good faith. If you wish to make a claim, you are free to explain your preferred definitions yourself. If you don't, there is nothing to debate.

refurb 3mo ago

> I am not obligated to make your argument for you Are you just uncomfortable with debate? How do you debate the merits of the argument without defining the terms being used?

Alpha3031 3mo ago
No, I just don't see any point in debating anything when you presumably agree that nobody is being bankrupted by free ambulance rides given that you called it a strawman. If you wish to defend what you called a strawman, which I didn't think people normally did in good faith but could be convinced otherwise, then I am willing to let you set the definitions you wish and make a case, as is standard for those instigating a discussion, while reserving the right to decline further participation if my disagreement with the position is below a certain threshold and/or any other reason I might find the discussion unproductive.
- refurb 3mo ago
  I never said no one would be bankrupted by ambulance fees. We’re talking about financial ruin of the government.
  - Alpha3031 3mo ago
    I really don't see the point of playing these word games. I had assumed you meant the government, yes.
    - refurb 3mo ago
      Clarifying definition is not a "word game". You seem quite uncomfortable debating the facts, and that's ok.
      - Alpha3031 3mo ago
        I am not interested in discussing "facts" with someone who has yet to acknowledge their motte-and-bailey, which for obvious reasons does not engender a reasonable expectation that such a discussion would be approached in good faith. If you wish to make a claim, you are free to explain your preferred definitions yourself. If you don't, there is nothing to debate.