I never said the Google guy was correct or wrong. In fact, parts of it makes sense and parts of it doesn't.

What irritates me is that people are making a huge fallacy. For example two people can have a whole set of arguments that conflict with one another. Let's assume we can absolutely measure whether a statement is absolutely correct or not. And two people each make their own set of statements about a topic.

Person A: Right - wrong - wrong - Right

Person B: Wrong - Right - Right - Wrong

Instead of A and B sharing their ideas and coming to a conclusion which will be

Right - Right - Right - Right

They keep fighting over small details and say "Because you have this little part that's wrong, your entire argument is wrong" to one another. This will never resolve because they each have errors in their arguments for a fact.

Any humble person would agree that he/she is not a perfect being therefore prone to errors, especially when it comes to complex topics like politics.

Giving someone like that your attention is simply increasing the distraction level. It would be much better to get someone qualified — in this case, say, a neuroscientist or cognitive psychologist — who can do a better job representing that position.