Oxalaia vs Tarbosaurus

Not to mention the height difference is less exaggerated here than in Spino vs Rex, and the speed difference is more so.

I never said it doesn't. notice the word" lack." meaning its not as profound as seen in other tyrannosaurs. the back of the skull didn't flare out as exaggerated. it was a lot narrower and couldn't provide an impressive degree of binocular vision as seen in other tyrannosaurs

Lack is defined as the state of being without or not having enough of something, so no, he did not say it didn't have binocular vision.

That's fallacious. If there's an argument not holding water here, it's yours, since you are using the possibility for something as an argument for how it could've happened, even though it was explained as not being the case.

Fallacy is defined as "a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument."

Your argument works like this;

Premise 1: Both A and B are possibilities.
Premise 2: A is more common.
Conclusion: Therefore, A is right.

Of course that makes no sense, which makes your argument fallacious. Not saying you're wrong for that, since that doesn't make sense either, but you're literally saying something is right because it's more common, even though the other option is said to be the case.

Premise 1: Both A and B are possible.
Premise 2: A is more likely.
Conclusion: Therefore, A is true.

Does this make sense to you? You were not assuming, you were judging something to be true because it was more likely, even though it was said to not be the case.

okay, let me set this straight since you two are debating on what I said. when I said " lack" I meant by the dictionary definition meaning" to not have enough of." i'm sorry mrirongolem, but your at fault by referring me to be speaking by the publicly simplified definition. in debates, it's important to use precise words that are synonymous with their true definition. lack often mean in common place conversations conceived by the ever lazier general public is a form of slang. simplified to the point were it means" to have or to retain nothing." which is false because it's not the actual meaning of the word. for example, refute means" to disprove with evidence." but it is used by the general public as to rebut, or to argue against. both are not the actual definitions.

so in simpler words, when I said lack, I meant by the dictionary definition. not the overly- simplified general public definition