If Hume isn't a great philosopher, then it's because the category isn't coherent. Any reasonable understanding of great philosopher would include him. In terms of importance, scope, originality, argumentation, he's among the greats.
If skepticism isn't admirable, I'll have to ask you to behave in a less disreputable manner.
if it's tautological then there's no reason to attack it. It's merely uninteresting. If people still think they don't like it than the critique would have to something else.
Gödel showed that everything is tautological if you go low enough, but invoking it against yourself feels like an automatic point for the other side.
I am not invoking it, of course it is uninteresting. In a sport amongst friends with good intent it should be a suggestion to stay within bounds and satisfy the spirit of the game.
The problem of induction remains an outstanding problem. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof. And moral realism remains contentious. There's justification for at least some of Hume's skepticism.
If skepticism isn't admirable, I'll have to ask you to behave in a less disreputable manner.