I do share Gad Saads's point of view that credentialism has been running wild, that people that allegedly are experts avoid questions regarding logical consistency, on which they don't have a monopoly compared to any other person that is a curious and reflexive observer.

and then run away when the real army comes, if it does at all because Rogan never invites the army. They just say "I'm a comedian" when is time to assume their responsibility.

Even more, Smith and others mentioned in the debate actively avoid contrasting their ideas with people that are unquestionably experts in the field. I call this "intellectual terrorism", because people like Smith shoot against the innocent in Rogan's podcast

While Smith still can question Murray, he can do it from the point of view of logical consistency, which is independent of Murray's experience. But he doesn't do that, he has been talking endlessly about things that need to be experienced and contrasted, without ever doing so, like a compulsive liar.

Douglas' statements have more weight as testimony, because they were made by a person that has journalistic integrity and was in the place to report about what happened.

An argument makes sense independently of who says it, a testimony doesn't. That's why a compulsive liar is not a valid witness. Testimonies are highly dependent on the context around them.

Saying Douglas Murray is appealing to authority is a straw man, because we have to recognize the difference between argument and testimony.