[tacticalogic]

I was ridiculing someone else’s argument as being based on circular logic, he called my rebuttal a non-sequitur, I demonstrated what a non-sequitur was in order to show him he was wrong.

And failed miserably. "Non sequitur" means "it does not follow". Trying to equate fundamentally dissimilar things will not follow. Something that was explicitly defined as having been designed will be fundamentally different from something that was not. An attempt was made to equate something that was designed to something that wasn't, and predictably the claimed conclusion did not follow - hence "non-sequitur".

[angryoldfatman]

Still not understanding who you’re arguing against.

My opponent claimed my calling out his argument as circular logic was itself a non-sequitur. It wasn’t. I exaggerated a non-sequitur to illustrate what one was, then told him the logical fallacy he was using originally (the circular argument) was “begging the question”.

Perhaps you can show me a proper non-sequitur to show me what I’m doing wrong.