I’m not sure what most of your comment has to do with the question at hand. Do you dispute that the third tone is a low tone in most contexts? More specifically, we’re talking about when it occurs in front of any other tone except another third tone (when it obviously doesn’t dip either). In connected speech, this is most of the time, since people don’t communicate in single syllables or indeed single words. I’m not sure where all the hate is coming from. This can be found in any textbook on Chinese phonetics. It’s very easy to verify.

I mean, if you come to my website “again”, I think you should expect to find articles written by me. I’m not going to respond to your comment in detail because you’re not even trying to discuss this in any reasonable manner.

In fact, I’m not even sure what you’re attacking here, exactly. You seem to be assuming a previous discussion, which is hard to understand because you use a nonsense username.

Is it the idea to teach the third tone as a low tone? That’s a valid opinion. Most people don’t do it. It’s a proposed pedagogical approach to make understanding the third tone easier to learn. I think the arguments for doing so makes sense, which I’ve discussed elsewhere (as I’m sure you’re aware of, hence your “again”). It is, after all, normally just a low tone.

Or are you trying to argue that it isn’t a low tone normally? Because that’s what any textbook on Chinese phonetics or phonology will tell you. Most textbooks for foreigners do so as well (Integrated Chinese and New Practical Chinese Reader, for example).

Still with no proof, no citations, no textbooks, and not a single certified Mandarin teacher in China teaches this. They somehow got their certifications anyway.
Stop hurting students! What’s wrong with you?
Everyone else is wrong and you’re the only one who’s right. You sound like Donald Trump.Hey, are you an American? Who did you vote for? Because that would explain a lot.