Burden Of Proof Is An Important Component Of Debates

You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men. Go --- yourself wannabe politician.