Please reread my comment. I in no way said what you claim I said.
To recap. People with facts on their side argue the facts. *That is the point.* Once mire: when you have the facts, you argue facts.
When you DON’T have facts, then you make your case the way warmists do—by attacking deniers personally, by trying to silence them, via name-calling, etc. It’s a method precisely designed to insulate the party using it from actually having to argue the facts.
If you could just see what I’m saying, you could then agree or disagree. But it’s no use disagreeing with something I didn’t say. That gets us nowhere.
But if you say that a person making an argument is doing so without referring to facts and ONLY using insults, personal attacks, ad hominems, etc. then I see what you are saying and I would agree that they are not making a good argument.
Which also doesn't prove or disprove a truth. If one person uses facts against a person with facts, it still doesn't prove the truth of fact guy's argument. It just proves that the no fact guy isn't making his case, even though the truth may be on his side.
And because I wrote all that so sloppily, I will restate for clarity. Both sides enter the argument but only one comes armed with the truth. The other with the non truth. It does not matter how or even if they prove their case. The truth remains the truth. Do you get what I'm saying>
So yea. I have to politely disagree with both versions of your statement. Truth lives alone and needs no defenders to remain the truth.
Did I mention that I'm a part time philosopher? I make up cool sayings all the time.
:)