An argument is more than just a string of sentences.

In an argument, sentences are offered from which inferences can be drawn.

This is what Stephen does not do.

And because he does not do this I have lost patience with him and have disengaged.

I have over many years asked him to make arguments, but he has continued to refuse to do so.

His usual excuse is that he does not have the time as if making arguments is too time demanding.

He prefers his impressionistic posts.

Arguments are what one might use for among other things to best one’s adversary in a philosophic debate.

But since Stephen only offers opinions or impressions without argument he is really never engaged in what might call a philosophic debate.

As for those who do make arguments when debating on this site no one has ever conceded defeat. Rarely is even a small point conceded.

In all the years that your positions have been clearly refuted you have never conceded defeat.

For instance, we need look no further than your recently refuted claim that sense certainty is a primitive knowing that employs grunts.

As for declaring that there have been victors, you are the only one on this site who ever does this.

Most members on this site are seeking to better understand Hegel through dialogue.

Only you seem to treat this site as a polemical battleground where there are winners and losers.

Only you seem to lack the Socratic spirit.

• Alan