[Dylan16807]

Because you said the article was 'wrong' and that you stopped reading, without actually doing anything to counter the point in the article.

That's a bad way to contribute to a discussion.

I didn't even realize your point was solely about the example. I thought you were objecting to the entire argument. Bad examples are more common than termites in a snowstorm and you should focus on the meat of the article.

[brandoncapecci]

I somewhat misspoke. I lost interest after when I read enough to deem the article too artificial an example and lost interest. I wanted to give honest feedback and see if other people perhaps thought the example was I contrived as I did - not berate the article or the author. If I was writing myself, I would want the same sort of feedback. Do you think I'm being unfair by giving that sort of criticism?

To me not finishing something is a measure of persistent captivation. It's not the first time I fell below my minimum. After I wrote the the comment, I figured people would harass me about not finishing and that perhaps I was being unfair to the author if I missed something redeeming at the end. I finished it, wished to change the comment appropriately, but it had already been downvoted. I should have known that it's very easy to look antagonistic when you're not saying something positive but I did say explicitly what I objected to. I really was just hoping to help by nature of sharing my opinion and was totally open - hopeful even - that someone would change my mind rather than just being looked upon as some asshole who just wanted to be holistically critical.

[Dylan16807]

Well they can't change your mind if they don't know what it is. You never commented on the meat of the article, so someone downvoted because of that. It's easy to think of better examples, and the way to debate for learning as opposed to winning is to either ignore non-critical flaws in arguments or even fix them for your opponent.