User blog comment:LegoI3rickI3uilder/Debate:Amount of Admins/@comment-4845243-20130709154148/@comment-4845243-20130709172402

You are correct: you can give facts besides numbers. But you haven't provided any facts yet except a few examples of personal experience. And anecdotal evidence is medium at best, and often weak.

Well, actually, the clarification of the word in the middle of the argument is what can be considered the No True Scotsman fallacy, but I'll assume good faith and go along with this.

Causing you to have to reiterate your point actually isn't necessarily "weak or inefficient". What I've done is question the validity of your points and forced you to clarify them, which is not a bad thing. There is an absence of factual examples. One single example is not enough for a strong argument. I also pointed out that this single example may be a weak analogy, and thus very weak support for your point.

I never said your argument is invalid because of lack of evidence. Validity is different than strength, which your argument lacks. your argument is built on probability, being inductive, and is weak because it has only a single example. Single-example induction is in fact what we call hasty generalization, which is considered a fallacy because of how weak and consequently unhelpful it is.

Your credibility is not helpful here. An induction based on a single example is inherently weak, as I stated above. Hasty generalizations never make strong arguments.