It implies that book alien does not think the debate would be entertaining so the debate would be about if the debate was entertaining. It’s a similar concept to the Monty Python “I came here for an argument” skit where the argument ended up being on whether being contrary was the only need to have an argument.
It’s a similar concept to the Monty Python “I came here for an argument” skit where the argument ended up being on whether being contrary was the only need to have an argument.
You cannot prove that it isn’t however.
And until you can prove that it isn’t, by virtue of not being proven, it has not been proven. And as such it has not been proven and is therefore unproven. So yes it is.
It implies that book alien does not think the debate would be entertaining so the debate would be about if the debate was entertaining. It’s a similar concept to the Monty Python “I came here for an argument” skit where the argument ended up being on whether being contrary was the only need to have an argument.
No it isnt
Yes it is
Noitisn’t
You cannot prove that it isn’t however. And until you can prove that it isn’t, by virtue of not being proven, it has not been proven. And as such it has not been proven and is therefore unproven. So yes it is.
A claim without evidence can be rejected without evidence!
Yes I can!
No you can’t.
Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
Ah, ok. Thanks!