colonel, take a look at your post. run-on sentences. one-sentence paragraphs. because your reading material consists primarily of youtube comments, your mind has been obliterated.
Also you starting your "arguments"
who said arguments? only you. please remember that quotation marks are for quotations only. fabricated quotations = straw man arguments.
Normally (in the vast majority of cases) i would agree with you
thank you for parenthetically defining the word "normally". i wasn't sure what that meant.
i started mine with a link to an encyclopedia article, not a youtube link.
a wikipedia link does not absolve a youtube intellectual. you think it does, which confirms you as one.
ratio of evidence as articles:videos - 1:3. ratio sufficient to hypothesise youtube intellectualism.
So if a former Oxford and Berkely professor lets his lectures being filmed and posted on youtube he becomes an illiterate person and all his highly distinguished arguments invalid by some magical form of tranformation? ^^
It is perfectly acceptable to create and to watch online videos, films and television shows. if it is your primary method of gathering knowledge by a wide margin, you are a part of the illiterati. if youtube is your primary method, your brain will become irreparably warped by videos of questionable quality and moron commenters.
why youtube videos are worthless evidence: there is no way to skim through it; it is unnavigable. You aren't able to stop and re-read things. You can't copy/paste quotes into discussions. youtube comments. and all these reasons presuppose that the video is worth watching, which is regularly not the case.
why youtube videos are less than worthless: they mark you out as a youtube intellectual.
[You think you are smarter than Richard Dawkins?] ^^
Well, I've seen some of the shit he says on his twitter account. and to me, his existential opinions are quasi-religious. aside from that, no.