Again with this...

Am I to remind you that rule 1 states - "Attack the argument, not the person."?

Observe my comment - "Nothing of what you said defend your argument."

The real depth of this argument is someone, who posts too long information posts, but can't defend it themselves. It's a tactic that tries to exhaust an opponent. Notice that the other person cannot defend their claim once, and I expose him about this.

Please let me know how is this in any violation of rule 1.

If you're focusing on the "reading" part, check the comment before that:

1. I said "I would advise on proofs that you can defend, not a post that you can't defend. It's a no-brainer. If you have an argument, put it forward, if you can. If you can't, don't bother."

2. Then the other one said "[Still asks for proof despite it already being provided]"

3. Has this other person really read my previous reply? What do you think is the cause of this?

I just caught a glimpse of the reply I got - "Thank you for admitting you cannot read, illiterate." I reply every comment as they appear in my notifications, so I will be replying this person in detail again...

I want to obey the rules in here, but I find it difficult as they might be so fluid that would make it impossible not to go over them. More information in the rules, or even from your comment will be very helpful. What am I to do with your current statement "Borderline rule 1 violations"?

Where is the line? What should I do not to cross it? Rule 1 is not very explicit about it... Do you want to help me to correct my approach, or outright ban me for any violation? I'm puzzled currently on this.

Thank you for admitting you cannot read, illiterate.

I can read. I read a long post of links that, if you truly know, you'd find it easy to defend in written debate. Yet, you never did. You simply played only on the game that is "read this 20+ hours of information and then we debate"...

No, no, no... It doesn't work like that. I don't waste my time for posts by people, who can't convince me that reading them is a good idea. Certainly, not a single person of sound mind does anything different.

Enjoy being wrong.

I debate. I search for the truth. And I have garnered quite the experience in it, if I have to be honest. That's why I asked you to defend your point, but you provided nothing logical to defend your stance. Only "read this nonsense and waste your time" is not a valid argument.

"Enjoying being wrong"... How so, when I mostly meet people, who can't defend their own statements? Whoever said "If you can't explain your views in simple terms, means you don't really understand them"...

Points require evidence of claims, which was provided.

You provided a long list of nonsense, which would be reviewed if you can defend its positive value. So far, you haven't done that.

You just circle around this idea that I have to look through hours of information, while you mistake me for someone, who is unaware of your tactic to exhaust an opponent by giving them lengthy information to delay them. I've debated so many like you, I find it boring at this time...

However, a simple point disproves you - the burden of proof is on you. You raised the topic that I am wrong about Hitler, why is it so hard for you to prove it without your lengthy post? Certainly, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be able to provide a concise response, wouldn't you?

Points require evidence of claims, which was provided.

Not concise, but in an exhausting post. If you know it already, you should present it simply. The burden of proof falls onto you.

Translation: "I am physically and mentally incapable of reading and understanding, therefore I will ignore evidence and my own lying eyes."

Thanks, got it.

Replied already. All you have so far is "read my link and waste enormous amount of time just to understand my initial accusation". If you read it already, how is it so hard for you to make a concise point? You made the accusation, you should prove it simply.

(Notice that I repeated myself several times. It shows that you don't bring anything new to the conversation, as much as it seems you reply to different questions with different answers... the answer from you is the same -> go to the link, but you should be able to defend your link simply, not force someone to exhaust their time reviewing nonsense. It's a strategy used by weak debaters, and I will remind you that I know of your tactics each and every time you use them)

Woman behavior.

Women speak in emojis only? Do you think we should warn other men, so they don't misuse them? Perhaps do a public service announcement? Or drown them with a link to a lengthy information while insulting them?

May I remind you that a woman gave birth to you? :D Oh, look! Another emoji... Call the misogynistic police!

Thanks again for conceding and admitting you have no argument.

Buddy... You'd know when I concede for real. :D I only concede to greater facts than mine, proofs that surpass my knowledge, and of course, the Almighty LORD and His son Jesus. And even tho I am not one of the best of His creations, I try my best, and I will continue to do so.

But if you're so sure that I conceded, please let me know where are the greater facts? Or the proofs that surpass my knowledge? Or any proof that you are God...

You must be new to debates, buddy. Here, I will advise you on your next reply - provide proofs that are simple, so we can go from there. Otherwise, you only show that you can't even understand your own post in a concise manner.

Bordeline rule 1 violations from you and the commenter you replied to