Jack ran away from multiple threads instead of debating me because he ended up in an indefensible position so quickly. He came back here to try to claim that wasn't the case, so I brought up the last post from one of those threads (from me, to which he never replied) and asked him to continue the discussion.
The key point was that I said Hillary Clinton was corrupt, he challenged me to show it, and I showed him a definition of corruption that he didn't expect (which is the one that google provided, which says dishonesty by people in power) and which makes it very very easy for me to establish it. His last attempt was to try to invalidate that definition by saying that it meant "everyone was corrupt" so it was meaningless.
But it only applies to people in power. So it's not meaningless. It's people in power not telling the truth about their actions or intentions, which makes them unfit to hold power.
I've repeatedly asked him to acknowledge that the definition is not that broad and does have meaning and he is ducking it and trying to use insults, posturing himself as important, and distractions because he's in an indefensible position. The definition does have meaning and it makes it easy for me to establish.
No trolling, no flaming necessary. He's just stuck.
