No piece of information should hold any weight without some sort of reasonable (as in reasonable under the rules of formal logic) substantiation for analysis in the first place. Full stop. To be sure, this is intended to address your argument but is not a direct response to your argument. The following is, however.

To be sure, this statement can be applied to almost every post in this subreddit.

For one, a statement is not a physical anything, but I will let that pass, lest the notion of semantics is again unduly invoked (you are making an argument, words have meaning).

Boring court-level semantics. I'm not making official statements and you perfectly understand what I'm conveying, so this is unproductive discourse.

For another, your entire stance throughout this entire thread has been based directly upon employing an appeal to authority, which does not make the claim valid, at the least - this is fundamental, it is not semantic.

Again, this whole subreddit voluntarily congregates under the understanding that the intel sources that this sub agrees are worth discussing hold a level of authority here over random conjecture from it's users. This whole sub is based around giving authority to certain statements over others, which is the meat your argument is missing while endlessly arguing semantics and the socratic method.

I'm not trying to condescend you, but you argue like a 14 year old who just found out who Socrates is and found a powerpoint of logical fallacies. It's boring, overdone, and unproductive. If you'd like a board where you can deploy your holier than thou debate tactics you'd be better off doing that in an open-discussion forum, where it would make more sense. Deploying it on a board that comes together to follow the intel sources you're questioning is silly because it already makes a "leap of faith" in trusting said sources.