Your claim that I am losing the argument seems more like an attempt to conclude the discussion. But since you are resorting to cherry-picking, let me clarify: when I say that the term 'drugging' typically carries connotations of intent and harm, often involving substances administered for manipulative purposes, I am referring to altering someone's mental or physical state in a manner that compromises their awareness. For instance, giving alcohol to someone without their knowledge illustrates this connotation. Alcohol affects cognitive functions such as judgment, coordination, and decision-making. When consumed unknowingly, it can impair the individual's ability to consent to further consumption or to make informed choices.
Shirasawa gave Ekoda diuretic tea. Giving diuretic tea to someone does not compromise their awareness in the same way as substances that are considered drugging in the harmful sense. Diuretic tea does not impair consciousness or cognitive function. They primarily increase urine production without causing significant mental or physical impairment. Therefore, they are not typically classified as drugging in the harmful sense.
You say that I really cannot counter your correct use of the term, but just dismissing my points isn't an argument. I reiterate, you are selectively applying a broad interpretation of 'drugging' to support your claim. This is a clear example of confirmation bias. By expanding the definition to include any administration of a substance, you validate your argument that Shirasawa drugged Ekoda with diuretic tea, ignoring the conventional context of 'drugging'.
Your tendency to dismiss my arguments without engaging in substantive debate suggests a lack of genuine interest in meaningful discussion. Given my waning interest in continuing this exchange, there's no necessity for you to respond further, as I won't be reading any further replies.
