When you start arguing about what the actual gravity is like in Faerun you may have exceeded the limits of honest argument.
I noticed you are not refuting any of Melkisdecks "escalating absurdities" argument. You are just using the argumentative equivalent of "nuh uh" (Equivocation). If you are unable to take in new information and modify your opinion based on that then why engage in argument at all? (This question is rhetorical, no answer required)
I was actually on the fence until I read his argument, but frankly I don't see a logical counter to what he pointed out. It doesn't violate any of the most common logical
fallacies. Yes I said I am not bothered by stuff I can easily ignore, but I took in new information and adjusted my outlook based on somebody making a really good point. This is called "being open-minded" - as opposed to being "close-minded."
Meanwhile I want to invite you to consider that you are using a lot of logical fallacies yourself - such as Equivocation, Ad Hominin, Appeal to Popular Opinion, False Equivalency and Straw Man Fallacy. Some of this may be due to be a non-english speaker but I would encourage you to take a moment to go over these fallacies and try to avoid using them as argumentative fodder.
To be fair, everyone here is somewhat guilty of abusing these to some extent (even me on occasion) - but I am seeing them in excess from you. When someone says you are arguing in "bad faith" - they are usually saying 1) that you are using a lot of logical fallacies and 2) that the purpose of your argument isn't to change anyone's mind but to cause conflict.
I am not saying any of this to be mean nor am I trying to attack a specific argument with this reply (that would be Ad Hominin- attacking the person not the idea). I usually enjoy reading your arguments, and I welcome differing points - even divisive ones. But if you honestly cannot recognize a good argument made in good faith then what's the point? (again, rhetorical)
Also a Keg is not a barrel - its much smaller. (false equivalency)
