Did they display only facts that correlate to the desired conclusion or did they examine the I consistencies and counter points as well?
I don't disagree with their conclusion but the other commenter's point is reasonable. We live in a world where facts are fungible based on how they're presented and interpreted.
Few things are cut and dry despite how they are often presented.
I don't disagree with their conclusion but the other commenter's point is reasonable. We live in a world where facts are fungible based on how they're presented and interpreted.
Few things are cut and dry despite how they are often presented.