Hello and welcome back to Sociology 101.

James White just put out a broadcast critiquing my debate with Chris Date on the

unbelievable broadcast.

And today I want to talk about why James White is, yes, unbelievable.

Because evidently he's got enough supporters that would go,

and I like story better than Bible.

But those folks are going to be more impressed by story time with Uncle Layton than they are anything else.

So...

He uses debate fallacies. So I almost titled this debate fallacies 101 because apparently, even though he's a well-renowned debater, he doesn't recognize within himself when he makes these own fallacious types of arguments. For example, one of his favorite arguments with regard to me, at least, is ad hominem. This is a to the man kind of argument. It's a personal abuse,

personal attack, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature.

It's against the person. It's against man. In other words, it has nothing to do with the argument

that the person's making. It has to do with the person. So it's like the description says here,

attacking the person, making the argument rather than the argument itself when the attack on

the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. So for example,

when he calls me a tall gremlin or when he calls me creepy because I reply to his broadcast and they happen

to be long because his broadcast are long and reply broadcast usually are longer and 99% of

my broadcasts have been in reply to him talking about me. Could I call him creepy since he's the one

who's initiated the last two discourses, critiquing my interview with Andy Stanley and then critiquing my debate on unbelievable?

You see, this is an ad homonym. It's about the person rather than the man.

And we see him do it quite regularly, for example, when he calls me a one-string banjo like this.

Professor Flowers is a one-string banjo.

And what's a one-string banjo? Well, it's only got one note.

...