This is an example of refuting my argument by actually arguing about it instead of discrediting me because I am not an economist.
My problem is when instead of your answer above you write "are you an economist? have you investigated this?" with the obvious objective of coming after my answer with an "ok, so your premise is false because you don't know what you are talking about".
Is that really the obvious objective? Maybe they are saying you should research the topic. "Printing money" is a red flag phrase, like discussing evolution in terms of your grandfather being a monkey.
Especially in the comments of political articles or about economic issues I find myself arguing with people who question my authority about a topic rather than refute my arguments.
----
Examples may be:
1:
Me: I think money printing by the Fed will cause inflation if they continue like this.
Random commenter: Are you an economist?
Me: I am not, but it's not relevant.
Random commenter: Ok, so you are clueless.
2:
Me: The current strategy to fight terror is not working because ISIS is growing.
Random commenter: What would you do to stop terrorism?
Me: I have an idea of what I would do, but it's not relevant because I'm not an expert, but do you think the current strategy is working?
Random commenter: So you don't know what you are talking about.
----
It is not about my opinions above, or even if I am right or not, I would gladly change my opinion after a debate, but I think that I am being disqualified unfairly.
If I am right, how should I answer or continue these conversations?