Wouldn't it also be good to avoid sarcasm?
Sarcasm has a place in debate, even reasoned debate. Given your track record, you really shouldn't be trying to school your critics on debate manners.
I would argue that for effective debate, it is useful to try to first put the statements by one's opponent in the best possible light...
Yet you won't delete that abominable blog where you quote only what you want from your opponents' statements. You don't have the high moral ground here, Jabba. Do not lecture others on what constitutes effective debate.
I've admitted over and over again that my ultimate claim rests upon circumstantial evidence.
You don't have circumstantial evidence
for authenticity. You have a laundry list of reasons why you think we should ignore the science pointing to a medieval date. You refuse to even discuss the false dilemma. That kinda makes me think you intend to create it.
While you admit you have poor evidence, you refuse to face the consequences of having poor evidence. You admit your evidence is poor, but you still think you should win the debate. You say your "defenses are breached," but a misplaced sense of duty to your father urges you to press on, and you have nothing left but to insinuate your critics haven't played fair.
And, the negative stuff about McCrone has been offered by a lot of the different researchers and scholars describing the events since 1950...
Asked and answered. You presented a list of those "researchers and scholars" and had your head handed to you once again. Instead of insisting that we have to give such gossip more weight because it comes from so many, maybe you should be worried that this is the only kind of evidence your "researchers and scholars" manage to produce.
And, mostly what you get from these different authors is that Walter McCrone (like Hillary Clinton)...
We're not talking about Hilary Clinton. We're talking about Walter McCrone. Don't draw false analogies.
...couldn't (can't) be trusted...
So far we can't trust your "researchers and scholars," and you've admitted as much yourself. Still you've changed horses.
Now you switch your argument to "cannot be trusted" because you see how silly "difficult to work with" is starting to sound.
But the problem is that this doesn't matter either. It isn't enough to simply change the color of the aspersion you're casting. If you want to show McCrone's science doesn't have probative value, you have to show that he
did engage in malfeasance that
did change results. You can't just insinuate it based on this or that personal trait.
And then even that doesn't matter. Even were you able to successfully impeach McCrone or any other scientist, you don't get to conclude "indirectly" that the shroud is authentic. You're wallowing so deep in your false dilemma you can't even seem to see how fruitless even your best efforts along these lines would be.
Yes, I'm telling you that you don't have evidence for authenticity. You can either think carefully about why that is, or you can continue trying to win rhetorical points by hypocritically scolding them for their debate manners.
