The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
With that said, his posts this debate are definitely unlike his other posts.
Unless this can be unequivocally proven though, I'm not sure he can be disqualified.
@2stepz_ahead
What say you?
This shit is shaping up to be a good debate though.
@Sion
I disagree about not being able to argue against a ban. It's not what we know, it's who has the more convincing argument, regardless of which side they are on.
I'm almost positive had you been assigned mutual funds over stocks, you would have convinced us all that mutual funds was the way to go. Then after you (potentially) won, you'd have come back and set the record straight. Tell me I'm lying? Haha
With that said, his posts this debate are definitely unlike his other posts.
Unless this can be unequivocally proven though, I'm not sure he can be disqualified.
@2stepz_ahead
What say you?
This shit is shaping up to be a good debate though.
@Sion
I disagree about not being able to argue against a ban. It's not what we know, it's who has the more convincing argument, regardless of which side they are on.
I'm almost positive had you been assigned mutual funds over stocks, you would have convinced us all that mutual funds was the way to go. Then after you (potentially) won, you'd have come back and set the record straight. Tell me I'm lying? Haha