Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
I've been reading about the Shakespeare Authorship controversy since I was in 7th grade. In all that time, no one has ever presented evidence or made a compelling enough argument to change the minds of most English speaking people.
All it would take is one disgruntled stage hand, or jealous actor, to reveal it, if not for money, certainly for spite.
We see Hamlet and McBeth as high art, but for Bill Shakespeare, it was commercial hack work....
You imply that you've done a lot of reading on the topic, but your post reeks of someone who just Googles "Help me debunk the anti-Stratfordians" Points you make have been refuted in this very thread.
I'll repeat the challenge I make to all skeptics: Post one or two pro-Oxfordian arguments that give you pause: that cannot be explained away as confusion or coincidence. If you read up on 20 arguments for Oxford and feel that 19 of the 20 are defective, don't tell us about the 19, tell us about the one argument that gives you pause, that does connect Oxford to the Authorship, that makes you want to seek explanation or further research.
If you cannot find a single pro-Oxfordian argument that leads you to doubt your glib reasoning, we'll know what to think of your research and Googling skills! Heck! Don't even bother with Google; have you even read this thread? Was there an argument here that challenges your view?
ETA: At the risk of being repetitious, the assignment is NOT to find an easily refuted argument and then refute it. It is to find an argument that makes you think, and against which you have no glib response. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander: I have already acknowledged two of the strongest anti-Oxfordian arguments.)