Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

Good job dodging questions!  👍

I've learned that repeating myself, doesn't change people ignoring the answer.... I've answered the question a few times now.... if he doesn't believe the answers, I'm not going to state it over and over. Besides appealing to motives doesn't change any reasoning or the conclusion. It fallacious to use as reasoning.

No need to repeat. Just link to the post where you answered Benny's question.

---

From this thread here at the request of others, I am giving my reasons for why testimony is evidence.

<SNIP>

I call Bullshit.

It'd be the right call.

---

Lol, you can't though.  that's the whole point.  To try and place those two on the same platform is simply equivocation.  Crappy, transparent equivocation.  Did you even read TGB's post about how many cases involving DNA evidence have been overturned by eyewitness testimony?

Spoiler alert: the answer is zero.

Cases that you know of (that's not really news, so you don't here if it) And what is the difference if testimony overturns DNA evidence in the first trial or the appeal?

Lol.  What does that have to do with anything? At least Steve-O attempts to disguise his red herrings. You're spiraling fast, RR.

And if the reasons for the argument are the same, then I think that the that the conclusion follows.

Are they the same?  If so, how?  Remember equivocation?  Anything going on upstairs at all today,  RR?  Too many beers last night or something?  

is the way logic works.

You don't seem to know very much about how logic works if you can't understand a simple equivocation fallacy...