@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally It's really simple, Pisco wants to pack the court by 4 justices.
Adding 4 justices is within the prompt.
Ryan debated the prompt
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally He couldn't defend them and is being destroyed right now by @robnoerr. You haven't made any points of relevance and when you have tried, I have given relevant replies and refuted you
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally Simple answer is you debate your true views. Debates are for laying out your best case and trying to convince the audience over to your side. Pisco failed because court packing is a terrible idea and Pisco flat out refused to denounce those plans, proving Ryan correct.
@BrunoGo12376406@Armrest1nc@RyanCMullally Does adding 4 justices fall under that prompt?
You can say that, but we've been going back and forth for days now and neither you nor Armrestine have made any points. If you have made points, then I have refuted them.
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally For someone who claims to have watched the debate twice and conceded above that 4 justices falls under the prompt. Seem like you just having cry for the sake of having a cry
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally I know you don't understand how logic works.
Ryan is against court packing and Pisco is for adding 4 justices. So debate it, wait Pisco had the chance to and instead ran from his public views on court packing
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally 1st you answered about Ryan's position on court packing.
2nd you never refuted anything in the analogy. Just trying to reframe it and failing at it
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally Well Ryan did look like a fool.
He got hot under collar and said "I don't care about the prompt" except you admitted above that packing the court by 4 is still covered by the prompt.
Specifically, a sub-position of the prompt.
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally You claim to have watched and listened to the debate twice, yet you've conveniently not heard Ryan's argument against Pisco's syllogism.
You're just showing you either don't English or your pig headed.
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally Pisco made his belief public and offered a debate and now his supporters are crying about Pisco defending his views. It's ridiculous.
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally Ryan obviously opposes court packing otherwise he wouldn't have taken the debate and made Pisco look a fool.
But don't worry Pisco has another 2 debates on court packing coming up over the next few days.
Hopefully he can perform better
@Armrest1nc@BrunoGo12376406@RyanCMullally If the client was already intent on building a 4-story building at that spot, then you wouldn't do a building plan with 1 floor.