David, you're quoting a false report that was literally debunked 100 years ago: the meme version is source 4 in my list. In 1920 it was reported there exists no "Libbre David", and assiduous search for such quotes in one of several books called Dibrei David has not turned them up. So the first two quotes are too distorted to find any originals; the others are false interpretations that don't appear in the texts as such. I could present evidence in more detail if you didn't demonstrate yourself predisposed to reject it.
My level of evidence is, you look at a text (like from sefaria.org), you see what it says, you do like a sociologist and interpret it according to its culture. If you want to quibble with anything in the link on a fact basis, go ahead. But it may be simpler for us to do a test case to see what meets your level of evidence.
To your quote about lying, there is no such findable reference as "Schabouth Hag. 6d". However, I invite you to read any of many books called "Shavuot Haggadah" to see if you can find such a reference; I haven't found one. Now, you might bring the medieval source Zohar, Vayetzei 27 which is Google-translated as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." So it only applies to wartime and is similar to Christian (or most nations') views on use of deception in wartime.
If you wanted to go back to the actual Talmud, you could cite Bava Kamma 113a, which says, "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct (even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a). Talmudists use context to show which of two contradictory statements is the majority ruling (i.e. Jewish practice), and here it's that marketplace deception or "circuitousness" is not permitted. But if you wanted to call out Ashi and Yishmael by name for a harsher minority approach, you could do so.
TLDR: When you go to the actual Talmud like a comparative religionist, you generally find reasonable judgments that are similar to other contemporary sources (e.g. church fathers on when to "reserve" information). I'd be happy to agree with you on an evidence standard such as I suggest above, and then to judge evidence, but you'll need to come to it without prejudice.
David, you're quoting a false report that was literally debunked 100 years ago: the meme version is source 4 in my list. In 1920 it was reported there exists no "Libbre David", and assiduous search for such quotes in one of several books called Dibrei David has not turned them up. So the first two quotes are too distorted to find any originals; the others are false interpretations that don't appear in the texts as such. I could present evidence in more detail if you didn't demonstrate yourself predisposed to reject it.
My level of evidence is, you look at a text (like from sefaria.org), you see what it says, you do like a sociologist and interpret it according to its culture. If you want to quibble with anything in the link on a fact basis, go ahead. But it may be simpler for us to do a test case to see what meets your level of evidence.
To your quote about lying, there is no such findable reference as "Schabouth Hag. 6d". However, I invite you to read any of many books called "Shavuot Haggadah" to see if you can find such a reference; I haven't found one. Now, you might bring the medieval source Zohar, Vayetzei 27 which is Google-translated as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." So it only applies to wartime and is similar to Christian (or most nations') views on use of deception in wartime.
If you wanted to go back to the actual Talmud, you could cite Bava Kamma 113a, which says, "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct (even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a). Talmudists use context to show which of two contradictory statements is the majority ruling (i.e. Jewish practice), and here it's that marketplace deception or "circuitousness" is not permitted. But if you wanted to call out Ashi and Yishmael by name for a harsher minority approach, you could do so.
TLDR: When you go to the actual Talmud like a comparative religionist, you generally find reasonable judgments that are similar to other contemporary sources (e.g. church fathers on when to "reserve" information). I'd be happy to agree with you on an evidence standard such as I suggest above, and then to judge evidence, but you'll need to come to it without prejudice.