[...]When arguing a stance on something it is advantageous to make multiple points to back yourself up. That way if/when one of your points are shot down (like all of your points have been so far) then you still have something to back up your position. There are two (primary) points to why there should not be a rule against trading accounts [...]
It's called "arguing in the alternative," and it's a complicated thing best left to grownups. What me and Salty are currently in the processes of is establishing where he stands on account dealing.
If he is happy with accounts being bought and sold, discussing the feasibility of banning the practice is a waste of time, because he doesn't want it stopped.
What's the point of discussing how to stop murder if murder is desirable?
Like that, see?
