So you’re agreeing with my opponent that my rebuttal was a non-sequitur. Here was my response to his claim. Please notice I am not making a claim about the subject matter; I am making a claim about his argument per se.
My opponent’s original argument:
“Reason provides greater survival advantage than stimulus response, as proven by human adaptability.”
My response:
“Humans adapted to their environment using reason, adaptation is why they survived, humans have the capability of reason, therefore they adapted to their environment using reason, adaptation is why they survived, humans have the capability of reason, therefore they adapted to their environment using reason, adaptation is why they survived, humans have the capability of reason, therefore...”
I called it a circular argument, then illustrated the fallacy of his argument by showing its assertion was used as its proof, using a repeating loop to show how it was circular. The logical fallacy he originally used was “begging the question”.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
I’m sorry you can’t understand this well enough to simply rebut me, instead of getting angry and giving up.
Are you a hardcore evolutionist, a creationist (old or new earth) or something in between? My opponent was arguing for evolution.
I'm old Earth creationist.
My opponent was arguing for evolution.
So do I.