As for @
HarblMcDavid aka the guy I already shut down: You can play word theoretics 24/7 but
you'll never be able to prove that Tonkasaw drives a shithole car! He's driving a great card that not everyone can afford and haters can only ASSUME its some low quality Mercedes dump and that he's injured his neck
and he's living on a social welfare (all baseless rumors). Case closed
I asserted the following:
1) German cars tend to depreciate by a huge amount in not a very long time (explained why in a general sense, and provided proof of the depreciation).
2) An autoloan for a car in the price range I cited directly from listings would be more than attainable with a piddling income, such as an income that public assistance might provide (this is an prerequisite to the "anybody" in the claim "anybody can own a Mercedes").
3) This phenomena results in such German cars ending up in the hands of people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford new ones (nigs, youths in backwards hats were cited as frequently seen examples).
4) I concluded that yes, anyone could own a Mercedes as a result of these factors, hence disproving your original argument which you posed as a rhetorical question.
You will find at no point did I connect this to Tonka and in fact the only mention of Tonka that I made in my entire argument was a throwaway line at the beginning in asserting that the topic of German car depreciation (and its reasons) is a more interesting topic than Tonka. At no point after that was Tonka mentioned or even implied, this was intentional on my part as my point had nothing to do with Tonka, merely disproving your claim about Mercedes and whether "anyone" can own one, because that is a claim which is factually incorrect.
Now
you are currently claiming with zero ambiguity that I am asserting (bolded and italicized in quote):
A) Tonka drives a shithole car.
You also appear to be claiming that I have asserted (but I can't say for certain due to your posts being too ambiguous on this point, bolded and underlined in quote):
B) Tonka is on Public Assistance.
I asserted none of the above things you claim I asserted (or may be implying I asserted) and I know you can't show me where I asserted these things because that shit that didn't happen.
Given that I'm not making the argument you claim I am, and I never did, I'm pretty sure you are the only remaining source for the position you are currently arguing against in the context of this debate you and I have had.
In conclusion, if my opponent is arguing with themselves, that's my cue to point that fact out, and stop arguing as that means I won the point I set out to make originally. That said, I eagerly await the conclusion to this heavyweight match between you and yourself, though I'm a bit unclear on whether you or the strawman in your head is getting presented with the L from our match.
I suspect the mods have probably had about enough of this from me, so I'll shut up on this tangent now since there's literally nothing more for me to actually say regarding my actual original argument and the complete lack of my opponent actually disputing it.
