> You've now twice in this thread made the claim that the person whose views you disagree with used a style that was too complex
Now I am 100% sure you are just another silly troll.
Now I am 100% sure you are just another silly troll.
"doing it in a overly-formal tone just to look more serious to gain credibility with mostly biased, false or unrelated claims"
"the extend of the words in your argument and the complexity of the words you are using in it helps nothing to your point."
I observe that statements like this are rare in just about every conversation, HN thread, or other debate that I've participated in or read. I believe then that this is part of your debate style.
Those quoted statements are prima facie ad hominem statements, and lack the followup to show that they are otherwise. The frequent use of fallacies is, as I've shown, characteristic of your arguments. That you disparage others for using those fallacies does not mean that you yourself avoid them. Indeed, it seems that your argument style is to attribute fallacious reasoning on your opponent, rather than explain why it is actually fallacious. This, of course, is a fallacious appeal to authority.
Based on your resistance to explaining the logic behind your reasoning, including even your disdain at providing citation references for the quotes you gave, and combined with the rest of this discussion, I have come to the tentative conclusion that you enjoy rhetoric for the edge that it gives you during debates. But you have been swayed by its power at making an easy attack, and do not care for the slower, more difficult job of using it as a tool to understand your own prejudices and inconsistencies.
In other words, you prefer to call people names than to explain yourself.