You said:

You’re claiming that you argue from a valid point of citing your arguments, and presented zero citation. The person the replied to needed no citations for their argument because they presented ideas, not facts. You’re raging trying to tell people to cite things but you’re sitting in your tower without presenting citations. You’re a ragebait clown 🤡

It's unclear whether you're deliberately misinterpreting InappropriateEmote or whether you simply don't understand them. Either way, it seems sensible to quote the text that you're replying to:

When we respond to blatant ignorance with carefully chosen wording, backing up our position with citations and links, and calmly explaining the nuance of complex geopolitical realities, we get accused of “always throwing walls of text at people.” When we answer that same ignorance with short and pithy responses, we “only have simplistic takes.”

This means that when Hexbear users present a longer argument with references, they get accused of writing walls of text. In response to this criticism, there is another approach: short and pithy responses.

InappropriateEmote is unambiguously saying that in this example they went with option 2, a short and pithy response. They are not claiming to have provided a longer argument with references.

This was said in response to a quip intended to shut down the discussion rather than deal with a critique:

Oh a hexbear. … You lot only have overly simplistic takes.

The alternative (dealing with the substance of the claim) would have required accepting all the other evidence that the US is both arms dealer and directly involved in running the Ukraine war and directing where it's dealt arms go. Again as with yours, there was an attempt to decontextualize what a Hexbear user said so as to dismiss the overall argument without addressing it's crucial features.

It is entirely unclear what point you're trying to make by distinguishing ideas from facts. Unless it's a weird brag about being grounded in unfounded opinion rather than fact, which, if it is, is not the argument you think it is.