> Wow, you must be a hit at parties.
Ad hominem attack.
> The way I phrased that sentence is how some some dialects of English, like the one I speak, express agreement. Consider it shorthand for "I agree,".
There is no English dialect that does not include the adverb, "yeah," etymologically formed from drawling the affirmation, "yes," colloquially and informally. More often, however, "yeah" is employed as a common filler in the same way as, "um," or "uh," used as a pause to think when not finished speaking, as such, when written, it is meaningless and superfluous. In modern usage, however, it may most often be correctly replaced with the phrase, "as a Millennial, I informally affirm."
> And perhaps consider the limits of your experiences and that wisdom is (partially) knowing what you don't know, and not attempting to speak with authority in such areas.
Ad hominem attack.
> In wording my response to you, I've deliberately avoided other expressions from my dialect that may confuse you, but are very applicable. Like "twat" or "tosser", or "tu meke".
Ad hominem attack.
> Yeah, nah. Thanks for contributing nothing that a basic Google of "Jesus Yeshua" wouldn't have.
Contradiction of informal colloquialisms and an ad hominem attack.
> In my dialect, "yeah, nah" often means "I'm experiencing fremdschämen".
False. An affirmative placed with a negative is a contradiction, but the assertion here is a clumsy ad hominem attack.
> You're going to need an awful lot of citations there.
While I agree with anjbe that this is moving the goalposts, it is also an ad hominem attack.
> Firstly, define the scholars you're referring to.
While I have not referred to any particular scholars, making your employment of such a straw man, I would define scholars in the ordinary sense as academics.
> Also, what sources are they working from?
This is further development of the previous straw man.
> Josephus, the closest there is to a contemporaneous source, doesn't mention baptism. Neither do Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Mara bar-Serapion or Tacitus.
Though this is a continuation of the previous straw man argument, in fact, the closest contemporaneous sources, in chronological order, are the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, Acts of the Apostles, and the Gospel of John.
> Maybe the scholars you refer to are extrapolating from the title "Anointed", or from the fact that, gosh, if you're saying this Jesus is sinless, and baptism is for the remission of sins, then why would you include a story in your holy writings that Jesus was baptised? It makes no sense, so you must've included it to be historically correct! Also known as proof by mortification. Or maybe, you're just referencing crap you garnered from a 5 minute speed read of Wikipedia that really needs more citations? Who knows? Tu meke au.
It its entirety, this is a straw man argument which happens to include ad hominems.