No problem:

First of; here's where I primarily source my definitions from, just so you can read along. But you can find similar wording elsewhere.

Now, quoting just your latest reply where you deny using ad hominems-

“dumb-dumb,” “dumb idiot liar,” “babybrain,” “stupid dumbass fucking bullshit lies,” “only fucking morons would believe…”

These are all "Abusive ad hominem / name-calling" because they target my intelligence, character and credibility rather than my claims.

“Let me know when you have a fourth … piece of evidence so I can take your argument seriously”; “you keep trying to high road lies”

Here you're "Poisoning The Well" by trying to discredit any future claims or arguments I might bring.

“hope you get that Israel money or whatever you’re in this for”; “like a foreign agent”

Here you're applying a "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" by bringing in something irrelevant to the discussion, and sprinkling it with some "Bare Assertion Fallacy" given that you've given no basis for assuming that I'm allied with Israel or any other foreign power.

regurgitate … from your master”; “Israel money”; “foreign agent”

Here you're imploying the "Guilt by Association / Bias And Hominem" fallacy by discredit anything I say based on the same previous "Bare Assertion Fallacy".

You are doing a fallacy where you think my calling you a dumb idiot liar somehow negates all the points…”

Here you're abusing the "Tu Quoque / Appeal To Hypocrisy" fallacy by trying to claim that I do not understand the fallacies I mentioned, rather than engage with the actual points. It's also fallacious because my appeal to toning down the personal attacks on your comments came after I responded to your actual points.

You also employed a few other non-ad hominem fallacies: a Straw man, an Appeal to Ridicule, A Red Herring / Irrelevant Conclusion as well as general Bullying / Intimidation (which is rhetorical and not strictly logical).

And that was just in this last message.

To clarify the first point:

The representative from the company did say the prongs seemed to have been improperly removed, and that the hole left behind by that seemed to have been covered in black tape, likely to protect the dog from the uneven edges that would have left behind. He also said he found that strange as they sell a replacement part for that purpose, which hadn't been installed.

And that indicated, to me, that once the shocking incident gained traction, Hasan scrambled to quickly put the collar in front of the audience but without the prongs. He knows people have been able to see the collar for months and would potentially recognize if he changed it, so he thought he could cover up the modification and claim it never had the shock prongs.

But it bring up questions to me:

Why would he have to improperly remove the prongs if not to hurry to show it to his audience without them?

If he had plenty of time why wouldn't he have just gotten a new one instead of modifying the old one? And if time wasn't an issue (because he had to quickly try to avert suspicion) why didn't he get and install the replacement part meant to have it safe for Kaya, post prong-removal?

I would say everything I've laid out is internally consistent: Kaya was wearing a shock collar, whether he shocked her or not in the famous clip is not relevant to my claims, but he got a lot of heat and attention to Kaya's collar from it, and felt he had to prove it wasn't a shock collar, and of course he'd know he'd have to do it quickly otherwise it would look suspicious. So he quickly modified it and taped over the now rough edges, either to hide the modification or to protect Kaya, or both.

Add to that that he changed his story, starting by vehemently claiming it wasn't a shock collar, and then, once some people found the model of it, changing that to it being a shock collar that could no longer shock.

That's internally consistent to me. Now, the only actual thing we know is the model of the shock collar and that it was modified, that the collar was way too tight and that Hasan changed his story when the model of the collar was identified.

Everything else is speculation, which is why I don't lead with that, but everything to the contrary is equal speculation and I just find that it has way less purchase with the above facts in mind.

On another note: I don't know why you're so quick to go ad hominem? I'm not attacking you or your character, and I'm engaging with you earnestly, taking in your points and responding to them reasonably.

How is someone supposed to respect your points if you make yourself so hard to respect?

Obviously I'd disagree. Between the two of us I would argue that I'm the only one who has brought even the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to support one of my claims.

Correct me if I'm misremembering; but so far you only brought a single link that talks about Dan Saltman, which was entirely unrelated to my post or claims, which is what you've been aiming to refute.

Not saying I'm drowning you in sources, but by my count 1 does beat 0 by a tiny bit.

I would be very surprised. Can you give me any examples? I would not know where to start with that.

Hitchen's Razor.

A collar with vibration and shock is a shock collar. A collar without shock but is a vibration collar.

The representative from the producer of the collar, that image and video evidence match, indicated that the prongs had been improperly removed and the opening taped over, instead of using a padded replacement cover for the underside, which they also sell. Indicating a rush job to hide the shock prongs.

Hasan has also had a guest who commented on the collar being very tight ("can't even fit one finger" was the quote), which would make sense for using a poorly fitted shock collar, which this one would be indeed.

So my claim is that Hasan used a poorly fitting shock collar. Maybe because he bought the wrong one or because he used one he already had, and he had to over tighten it to get it to somewhat work. And that he used a shock collar on his dog.

Hasan also changed his story several times as well. He started by claiming it wasn't a shock collar, to them later claiming that it was a shock collar but that he had the prongs removed. I believe he changed it further, but those are the most relevant I believe.

If you bring sources all the time, why won't you adhere to your own regular standard now?

Why do I have to follow an example you won't set for me?

That's quite the angry rant. I'll try to filter out the personal attacks and focus on the substance.

You can claim that the collar would be a bad fit for Kaya and I'd agree, but the images taken from Hasan's own streams make it hard to claim that it isn't the Educator RX 090.

You could claim he might be better served with a vibration collar, which is what Hasan changed his story to, but this one is shock capable, and there would be no reason to buy a shock capable collar unless you intend to use the shock capability.

But my claim is that he used a shock collar on his dog, not that he used one that was a good fit for shocking his dog. That's moving the goalpost, if not an outright straw man.

I don't recall hearing a loud beep when it went off, but feel free to bring evidence to the contrary and I can use your standard of evidence to dig further.

You can go on a tirade about evidence but it doesn't get much more concrete than stills or clips from Hasan Piker's own streams.

And to clarify: I do not find animal abuse minor, and I certainly think shock collars are animal abuse. But that's also trying to move the goalpost, once again.

I'm asking you to debunk anything I say, but you refuse and rely on fallacies and bad faith arguments.

I don't care what the audience thinks.

Writing is fast, research is slow.

If I'm lying then prove it.

If you want a different standard than what it's currently set you can lead by example, rather than with ad hominems.

Go ahead and prove that.

No one should. That's why I wrote that they shouldn't believe me but do their own research in addition.

I don't know who you think you're arguing with here if you missed that.