Does A Refusal To Debate Indicate A Lack Of Integrity?

My last post seems to have a touched a nerve with a commentator of mine.  In short, I presented an article from Ha'aretz about a young woman who is being told that she's Jewish by the Israeli Rabbinate and being given an impossibly high burden of proof.

A commentator immediately decided to attack the source of the story.  His first comment was

So you look at Haaretz as the Gospel. If there is one true sentence in that (or any) Haaretz story, it is surely coincidental and entirely unintentional.

Yes, the use of the word "Gospel" was not lost on me, but I let it pass.  I also let pass the fact that his entire argument consisted of "Ha'aretz can't be believed."

What finally got to me was when he posted this line:

Haaretz's say so? Haaretz's accuracy is comparable to Der Strumer.

That's the point where I shut the debate down.  It is my opinion that if he is truly comparing Ha'aretz to Der Strumer, then he's just not interested in (or not capable of) rational, reasoned debate on the issues.  In short, I am a firm believer in Godwin's Law (unless, of course, we're actually discussing Nazis).  When someone resorts to reductio ad Hitlerum, then they're no longer debating honestly or fairly.

My commentator seems to believe that my shutting down the debate (which barely got started) over this indicates a lack of integrity.  I don't beleive so... but I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm wrong and put this matter up for debate as well.

What do you think?  Does this indicate a lack of integrity?

The Wolf

The First Sign Of A Poor Premise In An Argument

From this YeshivaWorld CoffeeRoom thread:

Music has a powerful effect on the Neshama; that is not debatable.

In my experience, whenever someone says that something is not debatable, it often is extremely debatable.

The Wolf