Comments by "Eigelstein" (@Eigelstein) on "1 Conservative vs 25 LGBTQ+ Activists (feat. Michael Knowles) | Surrounded" video.

  1.  @thejuggl3r442  Absolutely not. He claims that the definition of marriage is a certain way and tries to "prove" that using an ad populum fallacy. He never backed up his definition in any objective way, and thus, the entire claim falls apart because he has not met his burden of proof.
    4
  2.  @Lucy-dn8gn  The problem appears to be that a bunch of people in the US are homophobic. It is the easiest way to explain why they are jumping through so many hoops to make a social construct something objective.
    1
  3.  @Lucy-dn8gn  The problem appears to be that a bunch of people in the US are homophobic. It is the easiest way to explain why they are jumping through so many hoops to make a social construct something objective.
    1
  4. ​ @Lucy-dn8gn  The problem appears to be that a bunch of people in the US are homo____pffhobic. It is the easiest way to explain why they are jumping through so many hoops to make a social construct something objective.
    1
  5. ​ @Lucy-dn8gn  The problem appears to be that a bunch of people in the US are ""same-sex phobic"" (thx YT). It is the easiest way to explain why they are jumping through so many hoops to make a social construct something objective.
    1
  6.  @Lucy-dn8gn  The problem appears to be that a bunch of people in the US are ""same-sex scared"" (thx YT). It is the easiest way to explain why they are jumping through so many hoops to make a social construct something objective.
    1
  7.  @thejuggl3r442  1:10 Historical part of claim. 4:13 asserts that the government cannot recognise it without providing evidence. Before he said it was a square ball, but he has not proven the "shape".
    1
  8.  @thejuggl3r442  5:15 His definition. He says it is true because of nature? He does not prove that his definition is the one observed in "nature" and it is an appeal to nature argument, which is bad. 6:28 ad populum appeal.
    1
  9.  @thejuggl3r442  6:43 The burden of proof fallacy. 15:10 Technically speaking a variation of the ad populum fallacy.
    1
  10.  @thejuggl3r442  It appears a bunch of your comments didn't appear.
    1
  11. @ "For the second claim ... somewhere" without any specifics." This is the only one I see.
    1
  12. @ I have stood by, nothing has appeared.
    1