AH! Wonderful! A worthy opponent of debate! You state assertions yet your data, while seemingly enveloped in fact, in actuality does not state fact, it instead states opinion. Indeed, you break your own rule by first explaining your opinion of Green-eyes, [and I quote, "Green-Eyes's fantasy is to rip off everyone and his brother. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of immoralism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that I like to speak of Green-Eyes as "obscene"] yet you then state that the first rule of debate is "attack the idea, not the person."
You further state, "The basal lie that underlies all of Green-Eyes's dangerous witticisms is that society is supposed to be lenient towards chthonic-to-the-core deviants" yet you offer no empirical proof of such. Furthermore, while you provide numerous examples of "how" Green-eyes is doing so wrong, you offer no examples of "what" it is that you speak of. In the pursuit of relevant and reliable knowledge, one must ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information, decipher the information, and CONSIDER the source of the information. You've not provided your source, by any means. You've brought no relevant data, nor have you drawn proper conclusions based upon such data.
You've inferred that Green-eyes has an underlying "control", i.e., "The basal lie that underlies all of Green-Eyes's dangerous witticisms is that society is supposed to be lenient towards chthonic-to-the-core deviants. Translation: Green-Eyes's refrains are our final line of defense against tyrany," and you state this to be fact, when, again, you offer no proof that Green-Eyes believes for a single moment that he is our "final line of defense against tyrany." Therefore, your entire argument is based on a false premise, and can not withstand attack.
You've used emotion, not logic, in your argumentation. You do not distinguish between logically valid and invalid inferences, and you have more than a few. Lastly, you fail to suspend judgment in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a decision. In other words, your argument does not stand up.
But this was fun! Thanks!
