You don't debate facts. You debate opinions.
As to fungibility you are making a classification error. I can say: "All mammals have a nose."
This however does not mean that if an animal has a nose, that it is a mammal. The same goes for money. Many monies have a fungible nature. Not having this feature does not preclude it from being money. However if it is not:
Scarce, durable, divisible, verifiable, and portable, it can not be money.
Something can't be money without being fungible to at least some degree. There is no such thing as non-fungible money. Fungibility is a pre-requisite. Ideal money would be perfectly fungible.
I think you're confusing a medium of exchange with money. Money implies it's a MoE, but an MoE is not necessarily money.
Agree with the last part, but I've never heard "verifiability" as being required in the classic definition of money, although that makes sense to me (recognizeable maybe?)
I don't think we'll agree though, so not sure if there is any point in continuing. Agree to disagree, but appreciate the back and forth anyway.
Yeah, I think a lot of people use recognizable instead of verifiable. It just always sat with me as too ambiguous.
