@strangeloop:
Your degree in "debate judging" is absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You being a "debate judge" has less than zero bearing on your claim that Frederick's substitutes opinion for fact. In fact, it makes your claim look weak as fuck, because it's a blatant and classic appeal to authority fallacy. Surely as a "debate judge" you should know that.
I haven't claimed to have a degree in anything. My degrees are not germane to the topic, so I haven't discussed them.
The fallacy is "appeal to inappropriate authority, like quoting Carl Sagan in his discussions on theology, when he was an astrophysicist, or claiming to understand how debate works, when your degree is in statistics.
Then you'd be a fool. Anyone on the internet can claim to have a PhD. I mean, I do, but you have no way of knowing that I'm telling the truth. That is why credentials are completely irrelevant doubly so on the internet, even more than they already are in real life. Accept an argument because it makes sense, not because someone claims to be an expert on it.
I prefer to go by the maxim, "trust, but verify." And which of us are you calling the liar? Me, in which case you're committing an ad hominem fallacy, or yourself, in which case, there's no further value in discussing this with you.
lol you must really be new to the internet.
More ad hominem attacks? Nope, there is no further value in discussing anything with you, as all you're going to do is troll. Good day.
