If you're arguing with an ESL about terminology, and they don't seem to be grasping definitions that are intuitive to you, are you out of line to suggest the disagreement may have to do with them not having a good grasp on the English language?

>>213819884 (OP)
Such as?

>>213819884 (OP)
>definitions that are intuitive to you
Retard alert
Chances are the ESL actually looked up the definition of that word and you are the one that uses it the wrong way because you had learned it from your serial rapist uncle 20 years ago and just assumed he wasnt talking out of his ass

>>213820238
>Chances are the ESL actually looked up the definition
Nah, you got it backwards; I was showing the Oxford definition to him and he was drawing a completely different conclusion on what it meant compared to what it said.

>>213819884 (OP)
You'd be right to assume that. However, it's important to note that the dictionary definition might not always be clear without prior knowledge on adjacent concepts, and you might need to give some additional semantic context to support your argument. The rule of thumb is if you understand something on a deeper level (as opposed to having a fuzzy intuitive understanding in your head), you should be able to explain that to a based retard as long as he is not being purposefully obtuse.

>>213820923
What was the word?