If you didn't like the party claiming $4000 should be the limit, and the party claiming $3000 dollars were a subject matter expect - which you are not - then I would say that picking $2500 is convenient to your attempt to attack the first party, which makes your argument less persuasive.
A point so basic that only the person with the bias could fail to see it. Convenient arguments, in my experience, are a sign one needs to rethink, not double down. YMMV, obviously.
> If you didn't like the party claiming $4000 should be the limit
If that's what I was fighting, I would agree with you.
But it's not. By avoiding the word famine and loudly announcing that I am doing so, I am explicitly not picking that fight.
I'm accepting the expertise of both parties, and making an argument that doesn't disagree with the claims of either party.
Israel says it's not famine, I say that's not good enough. Simple.
> Convenient arguments, in my experience, are a sign one needs to rethink, not double down.
Again, every argument that gives the benefit of the doubt would fall under "convenient". Including many arguments you have no problem with. If you took the car example as a completely standalone argument, unchanged from how I originally stated it (so there would be nobody claiming "$4000 should be the limit"), would you have any problems with it?
A point so basic that only the person with the bias could fail to see it. Convenient arguments, in my experience, are a sign one needs to rethink, not double down. YMMV, obviously.