<p>Attacking is more apt than arguing. He said that I have character flaws and for immasenior: “Keep cheating; I’m not your mother or your teacher, why would I care if you risk your ass for every quiz and test because you refuse to study, LOL. Go ahead. Be my guest. Neither you nor your friend have done much to convince me that cheating is of any merit - in fact, the way you so vehemently insist that cheating is in fact good speaks volumes about who you are. Good day.”</p>
<p>she also says “You’re exaggerating the opposing argument to make it seem unfair and ludicrous when it is neither.” when she exaggerates the extent to which immasenior holds standards: “You are taking the internet <em>way</em> too seriously if you’re harping on the decorum of an internet thread as if we are bound to the parliamentary procedure of the United Nations. If you are upset with the nature of this discourse, you are free to leave. I actually urge you to.”
This is also an excuse for her bad discourse throughout the thread, and discourages intelligent discourse.</p>
<p>More ad hominem: “I’m starting to think you’re screwing around and can’t actually be serious.”</p>
<p>Assumes that others cheat without evidence: " It seems like both you and @immasenior are trying to justify a habit of yours that you both know deep down is wrong"</p>
<p>In summary, preamble’s behavior has been dogmatic, irascible, inordinate, and disrespectful, which more aptly fits the definition of attacking than arguing.</p>