Also, I’d kindly like to ask you to stop being so disrespectful, there is no need for it. It doesn’t help the discussion.

Certainly I can try but you've decided that "someone" needs to debate me based one what? The line of users looking to debate me? It's all bad faith arguments. I prove what you're saying wrong and you just move onto the next topic without even addressing being wrong. These shifting sands tactics and logical fallacies are not going to fly in an actual debate.

Do you think I would pop into your comments on your blog and demand that you debate "someone" because you said something I didn't agree with? I assure you I would not. The level of audacity here is very high and you refuse to acknowledge it. Nor have I seen you concede or even retreat on any point you've ever made over the years: no matter how outlandish or speculative that point may be.

If you want to be proficient at debate and making valid arguments you need to have perspective and be able to argue both sides. If we had a debate where I was the one saying bonds are great and you were the one against them you would get absolutely destroyed; hands down no contest. You do not understand the points I am making (or just habitually minimize them to zero) and you refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that Hive bonds are a bad idea with negative EV. This is a dangerous (and borderline zealous) line of logic that will almost certainly lead to sunk cost fallacy and cognitive dissonance if left unchecked.