Of course it does, it supports this argument, that person is a loon because the reputation of the Noble prize has been seriously damaged by Barack Obama, the surprise winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The Committee praised what it called his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy".
The American president, in power just 9 months, was chosen over the 204 other people on that year's record length shortlist. That farcical decision of the Nobel committee calls into question not only the validity of all previous awards but the motivation behind making selections which now has been proven to be heavily political and insincere.
Had Obama, now known to be a pathological liar responsible for setting world peace back decades, lived up to the committee's expectations doesn't matter because the award is not supposed to be given solely on the basis of the winner's perceived good intentions. If anything Obama has made "extraordinary efforts to destroy international diplomacy". There set with Russia? How many red lines? Our allies don't trust him, his mishandling of Iraq has set the entire Mideast a flame, the whole world hates him more than they hated Bush,just read the polls.
Frankly if anyone in today's world wants to lend credibility to themselves for the sake of an argument I would think the last thing they'd want to assert is that they won a Nobel Prize! Wouldn't you agree?
It lends about as much support to an argument as saying "I was elected the captain of the football team in high school, really it's just a popularity award. Not just Obama, other award winners have demonstrated the same incompetence in their field, it's a joke.