Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

So, just to summarize:  RR starts a thread presenting us with a scenerio in which he picks up a chair with his hands, and hits a man over the head with it in front of 11 people, yet by some miracle leaves not a trace of physical evidence behind (talk about an extraordinary claim).  Then, he asks us to choose between two options of a false dichotomy; an oversimplified representation of the value of eyewitness testimony with no room for any situational context; regarding a stripped down, unrealistic hypothetical scenario that he has manufactured in hopes of leaving us no choice but to reach the conclusion he WANTS us to reach.

Then, he follows with this - and I quote:

Are you  going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? ...  Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence?

(Mind you this thread is piggy-backing off of a discussion about whether the Bible is the claim or the evidence, but RR insists he doesn't want to talk about that here.)

He then spends the next twenty something pages insisting he isn't arguing for testimony as evidence, and that he just wants to talk about it, the nature of it, the value of it, and what other folks believe about it.

THEN, when we try to ACTUALLY discuss the value of testimony as evidence, by way of exploring the spectrum of types of claims it may be proffered as evidence for, we're accused of "shifting goal posts" within a dialogue that he, himself, insists is not a debate.  

Then he says he wants everyone to stop saying eyewitness testimony isn't evidence.

Epic fail, yet again, RR.  Now take your ball and go home.

It wouldn't of took 20 some pages, if I didn't have to keep repeating myself (which is probably my fault for indulging people as much as I did). Why is it so difficult to understand that I may just be trying to gather what peoples different opinions are about the subject.
You say that I left you no choice in the two options - how do you figure that? You where free to choose, and if you think the evidence was not sufficient or there was no evidence; then the option of "no" would follow... that is your choice. I'm not demanding or arguing for a certain outcome. I do find it interesting, and out of the norm, but I wasn't making an argument. And if you want to expand, and offer an opinion that it is either not sufficient or not evidence at all, then anyone was free to do that as well.

As to wanting everyone to stop saying that eyewitness testimony isn't evidence. Sure I do... do you not think you are justified in your position and think that others should feel the same? However I wasn't saying that here. I wasn't attempting to get people to make that shift. In light of the questions and the scenario they re-evaluate their positions then I think that is good. If they re-evaluate and come to the same position, that is good also. I didn't give them any reason to change their position, but they are thinking about it. And even if they didn't really think about it, that is OK too, because all I asked for was their opinion.

Since no one took me up on the offer to make a thread to discuss (apparently that was some great thing to ask of people) I was thinking that I may. If nothing else, people can see what the difference is, between making an inquiry, and presenting an argument for my position.
However I am learning, I am going to just start ignoring; appeals to motive, arguments attacking the person rather than the proposition, and also those who don't really say anything but just re-state their position with more insistence.