Is it actually possible to separate the argument from the arguer?

>>2632808
Fuck off reddit normie

>>2632814
Gotta agree with this massive faggot fuck off op

File: 4141241241.jpg (33KB, 535x800px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 535x800px

1. If [argument a] is made, then the [argument a] has the property [is argued by x].
2. However, it could have been the case that [argument a] could have the property [is argued by y] in a possible world.
3. So, it is not the case that [argument a] necessarily entails being [argued by x].
4. If it is the case that being [argued by x] is not necessary entailed by [argument a], then [argument a] and being [argued by x] are separate.
∴ So, [argument a] and [being argued by x] are separate.

>>2632808
Yes, take any mathematical proof, it's going to work no matter who claims it.

Cause you separate a cause from its effect? If so, are they really cause and effect? If they are independent, then how does one give rise to other?

Can a runner exist without running? Or teacher without teaching. Etc

>t nagarjuna brainlet

>>2632814
that's all I need to know

OP is a reddit normie thus his argument is invalid