A "few minutes"???? Did it hurt much? Perhaps you could have tried sampling short stretches at various points in the video to sort of get a general idea without damaging your defensive shields beyond repair.
Not if you start a logic chopping exercise in which you attribute some narrow meaning to the expression. It is usually about how likely a claim is to be true or false, given publicly available information.
That starts at roughly 6:35 in the video. There is no "actual ratio", because neither side actually releases casualty figures, as McBeth points out. He actually showed a document that cited the 3:1 ratio but did not say where that document came from. In my experience (which has involved working with security analysts like him), this kind of assumption is exactly what all intelligence analysts engage in when evaluating claims like the one MacGregor made. He simply pointed out that MacGregor's 400,000 claim would therefore result in Ukraine having only about 100,000 troops left. That's absurd.
He just said the The Guardian (not really a tabloid) is usually more accurate then other public sources on the dead-wounded ratio (actually it was 17,500 dead), but he said he thought the number too low. He came up with roughly 100,000 as a more accurate number of overall Ukrainian wounded, many of which would have gone back into battle and possibly be wounded again, inflating those numbers.
You use the Russian MOD in an RT article as a source? And you take MacGregor's "120,000 holes" claim at face value? McBeth is not the one who is a "complete idiot".
Anyway, McBeth's rating of MacGregor's 400,000 dead claim is "extremely unlikely to be true", and I think he made that case very well. And you missed a lot more analysis of MacGregor that was even more devastating by not continuing to watch, but I understand that your defensive shields must have been overheating at that point.
So now you are trying to do the kind of thing that McBeth does professionally, only with no experience and far less understanding of which sources are reliable. For, example, RT is notorious for cooking its figures, and its Russian articles sometimes differ in content from English versions because of the propaganda values for foreign versus domestic audiences.
My comments are not endorsements of everything people have said in your arguments with them, so you are the one deflecting here by making false accusations. I think MacGregor is incredibly naïve if he thinks that Ukraine has lost 400K soldiers. If he doesn't actually believe that claim, then that would make him a liar. In any case, the claim is an example of a falsehood by any reasonable calculation, as McBeth pointed out in his factchecking exercise.
You actually just proved that
you don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I was pointing out to you that he was supporting Russia's claims about the war and was, in fact, interviewed by RT multiple times. I gave a link to support the truth of that claim. That isn't an ad hominem fallacy, which is claiming that something is false because of who made the claim.
That was sneaky. You changed what I said and put it in quotes to make it look like my words. I have boldfaced the parts you modified.
"it's fairly obvious from the McBeth critique that he does get things wrong and uses fallacious reasoning to support his claims"
As you can see, I supported my claim by referencing the video, which you admit you only watched a few minutes of. The fact is that you have no way to know what else he said, since the transcripted portion posted in this thread was only a small piece of it and you admittedly didn't watch it.
The stinger reference starts at 22:00 in the video, which you didn't watch. Again, I supported what I said. Your refutation is based on ignorance of the content of the video. Your remark here is typical of most of your criticism--ignorance based on your puzzling unwillingness to check the facts, which should have started with you watching the source that you intended to attack and criticize so vehemently. Again, it isn't McBeth or myself who is behaving in an "infantile" fashion here.