That is a very causatively specific thing you are claiming I said, which I didn’t. Again.

I’m pointing out that unless you’re claiming that to be the case then you don’t actually have any meaningful point to make here. Thanks for confirming that you didn’t have any actual point to make.

Have you genuinely considered that many of those assumptions and accusations might be wrong?

I can only go by the statements you make here which are either factually wrong or devoid of all meaning.

I made statements about various global systems of government, in general, and when you redirected and contextualised every statement to being consistently only about China, at first I did you the debater’s courtesy of addressing that, but unfortunately that courtesy has a limit, especially when you don’t reciprocate.

What I did is point out that your statements in regards to China were wrong. Instead of admitting being wrong, you just keep doubling down on doing sophistry here and acting injured. You’re not fooling anybody.

Lastly, I would have thought those ad hominems alone should be delete-worthy due to rule 1, no?

Perhaps you should learn what the term means if before using it. Ad hominem would be me trying to discredit what you’re saying based on your attacks on personal qualities. I’ve explicitly addressed your arguments in my replies on their own merits.