He stays in his facts, but ignores the facts provided by others, if these facts don’t support his arguments.
If you want to “build a case”, you have to argue with counter-arguments if you want to stay credible in the discussion. You can’t just dismiss or even ignore other opinions. Its impolite to demand of others to read your own lengthy explanations, but dismiss the others’ explanations with a simple one-sentenced “I heard you, back to my arguments.”
I stated the fact that a minuscule amount of official cards is shown in the translation thread and argued that it isn’t worth it to change the terms and conditions, and explained why. I argued with juridical discretion. I stated the fact that data protection is about storage too. I got no meaningful answers at all.
In my experience, there are two sorts of people who act like this: Bosses who have put the idea of a project in their head and want to push it through, against concerns and risks voiced by others. Such bosses praise those who support their arguments and ignore or even despise those who have good counter-arguments. The second group are children who can’t accept that they don’t rule the world and throw a tantrum because they don’t want accept the opinions of others. We aren’t either of these, aren’t we?
If you want to build a case like an impertinent, pushy lawyer, you treat the counter-arguments casually or blank them out and just repeat and pressure forward your arguments by stating that they’re better, because you’re under the arrogant impression that you’ll win this case no matter what. If you want to build a case like a matter-of-fact, considerate lawyer, you’ll balance your arguments against the arguments of the other party. You’ll try to convince the judge (who will read both compositions) that your arguments are better by explaining why, by responding to the other’s argumentation and by finding new arguments which prop up your own ones.
If you want to build a case, you have to provide more than a theoretical argumentation. You have to substantiate and concretize. It really helps to reveal what this all is about because the other party will be able to understand it better if you offer examples to illustrate your problem.
I totally agree with @littlesthobo that this forum isn’t a discussion forum, but that @varn behaves as if it were. This topic has reached its limits. It’s my opinion too that @varn’s way of “discussion” is against the spirit of the forum.
And last but not least, @varn doesn’t stay in the facts because he has made himself the judge who rules which arguments are more “sound”, more “valid”:
I’m sorry, but this isn’t “staying in the facts”, but unobjective and impertinent. The judge is the one who decides; in this case, the judge are the admins who will ponder over the arguments stated and weigh them to find a solution.