You were wrong, but a lot of people were attributing a position to you that you didn't actually take (i.e., free energy). I understood your position -- that a given alternator at a given speed produces up to X watts of electrical power, that may or may not be used, but can't be exceeded.
His position was equivalent to the free energy position, and the knowledge (ok, faith) that perpetual motion machines are impossible to make serve to expain why his own position was wrong. If, in fact, it took the same torque to run a generator irrespective of the electrical load on it, then you could make a perpetual motion machine in the following way:
Get a small motor, and a bigger generator. The small motor is enough to overcome the friction in the larger generator with no load. Now, turn on the generator -which supposedly doesn't change the torque required to turn it. Since it's a bigger generator, it can not only power the small motor, there is power available for free on top of that.
The fact that the above is impossible can be used to prove that the torque must change with electrical load; the perpetual motion scheme falls on the assertion of torque being independent of electrical load. In fact, when you connect the generator to the motor (that is, when you draw a load from the generator) the little motor will no longer be able to maintain RPMs - it will soon stop if there is no other power source.