Shucks blushesl

@DavidLaDeau Love the bird, by the way.

@Lilac-Jade You of all people know the bird does not exist...You have seen the video that PROVES IT!!!! Love ya!

@DavidLaDeau Riiiiiight…..hahahaha......

@Gurahl I have ideas about these (safe spaces) ,but tell me yours first.

Thank you! The conversation should start with the conclusion that one has come to. One can not be wrong about that. Once that has been estalished we can then discover if the methodology may be flawed. No need to attack that, it is better for one to examine if the way we did come to a given conclusions may be flawed for ourselves.

@Gurahl You cannot demand it because you do not know the full history of your opponent, and what will happen in the future. You can work forward with temporary rules by experiment from an hypothesis. [sorry for the use of Jargon]

@DavidLaDeau I respectfully challenge the validity of your first two sentences in this reply. To take the second sentence first, you (and I) can be wrong about anything real or imagined.

Secondly an interchange that starts with a conclusion can immediately be challenged and you do not get the chance to see how your adversary led up to that conclusion. Clear rational discussion with any proposal or premise involved in your interchange being intertwined with the evidence which leads up to the conclusion. Politicians (bless them) always spout forth unproven facts because they are usually about the future and we cannot verify the future. Thankfully though we can report to people how an experimental pilot performed in the past might affect future changes .

You do sometimes need to air a challenge to find out IF it is flawed.

My suggestion is that you stick as close to science methodology as you can… it eventually produces useful things .
BTW Religionists always start with a conclusion e.g."Christ is King" followed by a lot of other useless brainwashing phrases. Humans actually need to find for themselves a conclusion stepwise, and with surprise.

@Mcflewster I may have not articulated my self well. What I ment to say is that if one has an opion on anything. One can not refute that. I am wasn''t refering to proper argument structure. I intended to go on and say that if one has an opion about something the fact that they hold that opionion can not be argued. It is then a discussion can open about how one came to that opionion.
In my videos I attempt to express my opioion and simply give a few quetions that I asked that were unanswered that led to that opionion.

@DavidLaDeau I agree that it would be rude to ignore or deny someone's opinion but I have read somewhere that "Opinions are not allowed". Radical I know, but I think is an attempt to get at facts. [as I assume you would wish] In addition it could be a good idea to state how your adversary could check those facts or find better ones UP FRONT . Is this a good phrase "Check the facts up front?" or "Opinions differ facts scientifically found facts don't" In that last one 'scientifically found' assumes that large numbers of peers regularly check each others facts.

@Mcflewster That is a very good method. It does not fit my style for my videos as I do not wat to challenge anyone directly...I want them to stew on it for themselves. It just sometimes boils down to style and approach. Some methods may work very well for others that do not work for me. All methods and styles of approach are needed as they may work well on different people. I just like to plant seeds of doubt and let them do the cultivation on their own so that it seems to be their idea.