Finding the Flaw in this Logical Argument?

[UK_Apologist]

Hi everyone, I always find this forum a good place to bounce ideas about so here's something I could do with some input on.

I'm having a debate with an occultist and fan of Aliester Crowley. Our discussion centres around the things this man has been labelled by others (e.g. notorious black magician, etc.)

I showed him some quotes from authors who are respected in the pagan and occult community who have even labelled Crowley negatively.

Now then, this guy states I can't use quotes from others who are not direct followers of Crowley even though they are under the umberella term of "pagan or occult community." If I do then he feels he can similarly cite authors against me who fall under the term "abrahamic religions" (of course, Muslims, Jews and Christians).

So:

I use sources from authors under the umberella term 'pagan and occult' to back up my claim that even others in the occult community view Crowley negtaive (depite generally being in favour of him).

He then feels he can use sources against Christianity from Jewish and Muslim sources as all fall under the umberalla term "abarahamic religions"

Weird argument I know, and I have had some things to say already but nothing is moving him much. I also know there is a real flaw in his argument somewhere but can't seem to see the wood for the trees at the moment. Any input on this greatly appreciated guys.

[Rainbow Brite]

He has a point, you should try to find Thelemists or O.T.O.s critical of Crowley.

[Zombie]

any real thelemite will tell you crowley WANTED to be viewed negatively (and positively). its all part of the 'guru' game. in essence he was many things to many people. in part to teach, in part cause he was a less than likable person.

ive heard from some, 'great teacher, cant stand him personally" type statements.
i just dont know how the argument in whole will stand when one of the parties wanted libel/slander against it.
i can elaborate if you think it would help.