Isn't that the question, whether or not what he's doing is a "specious debate tactic"? You saying "when it's not" begs the question. It is, in my opinion. You can disagree, but your disagreement is not objective fact, just a belief.
Nor did I, "disregard the responses." I pointed out missed concepts, which to me were gaping and exposed a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem (how do you not know about YT Shorts when talking about TikTok eating YT's lunch?).
Finally, for what I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to claim the author's argument was, specifically, wrong as a result of who they were. I never actually said anyone was "wrong" per se; my disagreements with the arguments have been on substance (I mention YT Premium as a counterpoint, for example). I also made observations related to things other than the user's argument, but I never claimed they were wrong as a result of those observations, only that their credibility was injured.
> Isn't that the question, whether or not what he's doing is a "specious debate tactic"? You saying "when it's not" begs the question. It is, in my opinion. You can disagree, but your disagreement is not objective fact, just a belief.
Sorry but if I call a fish a cigarette it is not a disagreement over belief. In this case 'gish gallop' has a definition:
The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. -wikipedia
Please tell me how this applies to the response you admit to not reading.
> Nor did I, "disregard the responses."
You specifically said you didn't read at least one of them.
> Finally, for what I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to claim the author's argument was, specifically, wrong as a result of who they were.
You wrote that you would take them seriously if they weren't a new account. If that isn't 'wrong as a result of who they were' then what would you call it?
Funny you mention fish; there’s no such thing! So is a cigarette a fish? Might as well be. [0]
You have quoted the fact, which is the definition of the Gish gallop. Your opinion is that it does not apply here, and I disagree. You do not hold authority over how to interpret English, so you cannot therefore declare factually that I am wrong, only that you disagree.
As for taking something seriously or not, that’s got nothing to do with right or wrong; you need credibility to be considered, and without credibility the “rightness” of your argument never makes it to evaluation. Happens all the time in the legal world [1], and certainly not at all related to the innate properties of the person who makes the argument.
I know you won't get this so long as you're frustrated, but there's some real irony in this comment. Maybe in a few weeks come back and reread this to find it.
Nor did I, "disregard the responses." I pointed out missed concepts, which to me were gaping and exposed a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem (how do you not know about YT Shorts when talking about TikTok eating YT's lunch?).
Finally, for what I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to claim the author's argument was, specifically, wrong as a result of who they were. I never actually said anyone was "wrong" per se; my disagreements with the arguments have been on substance (I mention YT Premium as a counterpoint, for example). I also made observations related to things other than the user's argument, but I never claimed they were wrong as a result of those observations, only that their credibility was injured.