Part 3/5:
The respondent claims they do not use the feed in question but questions how the other party could know that, suggesting an element of personal experience or data is necessary for validation.
The Dispute About Experience and Evidence
Interestingly, the discussion reveals a contradiction: one individual claims to have experienced more hateful content, yet cannot provide any example to back this up. This inconsistency leads the other party to describe the statement as "absurd," emphasizing the importance of verifiable evidence over claims.
The debate becomes more heated as accusations of dishonesty or misrepresentation surface, with one side suggesting that the other is more interested in attacking opponents in the press rather than engaging in a factual discussion.