This really comes across like a child in the grocery store, who refused to move until he gets his candy. Let us instead of accusing people of "logical fallacies" for disagreeing with us, or refusing to debate with them as peers, either gracefully conceded from the argument and thread, or present a rebuttal in a respectful way.
An argument based on a logical fallacy is not sound, and not worthy of rebuttal. I will not debate with anyone who cannot form an argument that is not self-defeating. Don't like it? At the risk of sounding like a child in a grocery store who refuses to move until he gets his candy, too bad. />
Help all the people not as gifted as yourself then. This is where you started claiming logical fallacy:
Argument from ignorance. A proposition is not true just because it has not been proven false.
Until you and Craig stop committing logical fallacies in your arguments, I refuse to take either of you seriously.
You actually started with suggesting someone's argument was from ignorance and previous to that you'd tried "false dichotomy":
False dichotomy. One need not carry a gun to be armed with a weapon. "Either you have a gun, or you're defenseless" arenot the only two options. You have obviously bought into this nonsensical, NRA manufactured idea that you're not safe unless you have a loaded gun in your hands 24/7. It is people like you with loaded guns and limited critical thinking skills that I do my best to avoid at all costs. I am grateful for that list. Every city should have one.
Mind you, you didn't pursue that very long as even non-gifted folk saw through that sham of a response. I mean, last time you ventured into a debate like this you tried to label everything not agreeing with you as "fallacy of false equivalence" and didn't fare too well there either.
So, we've established that you've bookmarked all your favorite wikipedia links to debate definitions and you believe them to be bulletproof (pardon the pun) when someone dares to disagree with your opinion. Can't respond to an obvious flaw in your argument? Call the detractor's argument [insert favorite definition you barely even comprehend here] and voila!...safely dismiss and ignore the detractor.
Anyway, to assist you (because I know you'll do your damnedest to ignore it) the question as of now is: what about the argument (to you) constitutes a logical fallacy? Or will you double down on the debate definition derp?