If you feel the need to for personal attacks over a philosophical debate, where you consistently insist of understanding the other side wrong, then you might want to check your tools of communication. They are clearly not working optimal but granted, they might be the best, you have avaiable - but you still could improve them.
"Nothing is true, nothing is false."
No one ever claimed that in this debate, except you.
>If you feel the need to for personal attacks over a philosophical debate, where you consistently insist of understanding the other side wrong,
No personal attack was conducted here. It's just you're sensitive. I mean I could take this: "where you consistently insist of understanding the other side wrong" as an insult.
I could also take this: "Well, if you think so, then consider yourself the tautological winner. " as a sarcastic insult as well.
But i don't. Because I'm not sensitive. Nobody was insulted here. You need to relax. Calling you a loser was just me turning your sarcastic "tautological winner" statement around and showing you how YOU are at the other side of the extreme. I'm not saying you're a "loser" anymore then you were sarcastically calling me a "winner."
Put it this way, the "loser" comment is an insult IF and ONLY if you're "winner" comment was an insult too. If it wasn't we should be good.
>No one ever claimed that in this debate, except you.
You never directly claimed this, but it's the logical consequence of your statements. You literally said my statement was flawed because it was "absolute". You're like "this is what you get when you make absolute claims." And my first thought was, "what on earth is wrong with an absolute claim?" We do not live in a universe where absolute claims are invalid because if we did then "Nothing is true and nothing is false" and everybody loses.
If this isn't the case then go ahead and clarify your points.
"Nothing is true, nothing is false."
No one ever claimed that in this debate, except you.