We can't prove it, and if you won't prove it's the case then it has no room to appeal to anyone but yourself.
Effectively, he can't know if he's right or wrong, so it's not a true victory to me.
We can't prove it, and if you won't prove it's the case then it has no room to appeal to anyone but yourself.
Effectively, he can't know if he's right or wrong, so it's not a true victory to me.
Is Chapo right or wrong, if I am an engineer or a chemist?
You're answering a different question.
I'm not asking if it's irrelevant or if we can know for certain what my profession is, I'm asking:
If I am an engineer or a chemist, is Chapo right or wrong?
I am probably wrong about my initial statement if you are an engineer or chemist. If you are one of those 2 things I apologize, otherwise I am probably right.
I'm not asking if it's irrelevant, I'm asking:
If I am an engineer or a chemist, is Chapo right or wrong?
Alright, if you insist on working within conditionals, either:
A. If you are an engineer or chemist, then he has conceded defeat.B. If you are not an engineer or chemist, then he has not conceded defeat, but rather has merely associated a win condition within those two fields.A1. If you are an engineer or chemist, than proof would lay all of this to rest, but presenting your qualifications is stupid.
A2. From choosing to not make it about the specifics of your qualifications in those two fields, the discussion can go on without yielding your occupation. In such a case, refer to B.B1. He yields from further discussion that it is not just those two fields, but rather anything requiring a degree (barring some semantic exceptions I'd imagine).
B2. He doesn't yield B1, instead insisting that other than those two fields that he'd be your superior, and that should you change fields he'd be your better, even if it's within other more collegiate walks of life.
He has this hinging on if you are those things, not on if you might be.
I'm not asking if it's irrelevant or if we can know for certain what my profession is, I'm asking:
If I am an engineer or a chemist, is Chapo right or wrong?
I am probably wrong about my initial statement if you are an engineer or chemist. If you are one of those 2 things I apologize, otherwise I am probably right.
'Probably' works here, but the apology kinda rings hollow if you don't actually know, right?
I'm not asking if it's irrelevant, I'm asking:
If I am an engineer or a chemist, is Chapo right or wrong?
Alright, if you insist on working within conditionals, either:
A. If you are an engineer or chemist, then he has conceded defeat.B. If you are not an engineer or chemist, then he has not conceded defeat, but rather has merely associated a win condition within those two fields.A1. If you are an engineer or chemist, than proof would lay all of this to rest, but presenting your qualifications is stupid.
A2. From choosing to not make it about the specifics of your qualifications in those two fields, the discussion can go on without yielding your occupation. In such a case, refer to B.B1. He yields from further discussion that it is not just those two fields, but rather anything requiring a degree (barring some semantic exceptions I'd imagine).
B2. He doesn't yield B1, instead insisting that other than those two fields that he'd be your superior, and that should you change fields he'd be your better, even if it's within other more collegiate walks of life.He has this hinging on if you are those things, not on if you might be.
I am literally asking you... It's a yes/no question.
If I am an engineer or a chemist, is Chapo wrong?
I'm not asking if it's irrelevant, I'm asking:
If I am an engineer or a chemist, is Chapo right or wrong?
Alright, if you insist on working within conditionals, either:
A. If you are an engineer or chemist, then he has conceded defeat.B. If you are not an engineer or chemist, then he has not conceded defeat, but rather has merely associated a win condition within those two fields.A1. If you are an engineer or chemist, than proof would lay all of this to rest, but presenting your qualifications is stupid.
A2. From choosing to not make it about the specifics of your qualifications in those two fields, the discussion can go on without yielding your occupation. In such a case, refer to B.B1. He yields from further discussion that it is not just those two fields, but rather anything requiring a degree (barring some semantic exceptions I'd imagine).
B2. He doesn't yield B1, instead insisting that other than those two fields that he'd be your superior, and that should you change fields he'd be your better, even if it's within other more collegiate walks of life.He has this hinging on if you are those things, not on if you might be.
It is literally a yes or no question...
If I am an engineer or a chemist, is Chapo wrong?
Yes or no questions tangent into different meanings based on contingency. It merely starts as a yes or no question, but what it means is so much more.
Even programming expresses this, when you call upon variables. Compiling it as you're expressing it would be doing so with unidentified variables, it wouldn't be able to run.
Yes or no questions tangent into different meanings based on contingency. It merely starts as a yes or no question, but what it means is so much more.
Even programming expresses this, when you call upon variables.
So you're not going to answer it?
If I am an engineer or a chemist, is Chapo wrong?
Either Chapo is wrong or he is not. Correct? He has said that he is wrong, if I am an engineer or a chemist.
So is Chapo wrong, if I am an engineer or a chemist?
