The motivations for adopting those positions are not what make them poor frameworks.
You aren't understanding. There are many very convincing historical arguments made within a Whiggish or Marxist framework. For instance the Marxist and Whiggish understandings of 1688 was quite popular for quite some time, not just because these intellectual fashions were in vouge, but also because they were so established that they were capable of putting out narratives with a high degree of sophistication within their perimeters. It is absolutely pertinent when looking at such arguments now that they people writing them were Whiggish or Marxist, even if such information does not come out in the argument directly.
Honestly, what you're doing is denying that bias is a relevant thing to be aware of. I see where you're coming from, but it's ultimately a very shallow way of looking at the past based on a methodology that simply doesn't fit.
Again, you keep moving historical discussion from being talking about the past to being the past itself. We aren't getting at the
dinge an sich here. Science has a far better claim to being able to do that, and even it clearly falls far short of actually doing that.
A baseless assertion can be addressed.
Kinda sorta, all you can do is posit a better understanding by appealing to specific sources, either primary or secondary which has happened once in this thread and even then it was popular history, or demonstrate that the baseless assertion is internally inconsistent. Most claims about the past aren't really demonstrably wrong, they are demonstrably weak.
You can ask for support or counter it with a different assertion.
Yes, and if we were Japanese historians we could do this in a meaningful way. But we aren't so the best we could do is point to that expert community. Which frankly should be the end of our discussion. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no one in this thread has the ability to meaningfully create new arguments on this topic. I doubt anyone has done archival work on the subject, and synthesizing secondary arguments is best done in the form of short summaries coupled with a reference to that secondary source. Which is to say by pointing towards the expert community involved here.
I don't understand why or how your perception of the quality of discourse can somehow justify the use of logical fallacies.
Because I'm asserting that what you are calling a logical fallacy isn't problematic in this situation. I'm also a big fan of appealing to authority, in the form of expert communities who society gives privileged access to epistemological claims within their field. I'm sure you'd also call this a fallacy, while I think this is the only way we can meaningfully deal with complex matters in the modern world.