You appear to be attempting to prove to the world that I'm wrong to assert that you and the other user unnecessarily blow out of proportion and prolong arguments without truly listening, by strongly emotive argument and taking what I said as a series of unconnected assertions for to destroy, taking on board nothing of what I said and instead turning my reluctance to join in your preexisting arguments into some sort of proof that my conclusions are wrong.
You seem to be unable to see the wood for the trees. The irony is strong.
Did it not occur to you that arguing so strongly that I'm wrong, accompanied by name-calling no less, might instead show that I'm right? It wasn't meant as a trap, but you twisted it around until you ensnared yourself.
Ask yourself if you really do demand as much evidence from people or points with which you instinctively agree, and you'll see that your self-perceived intellectual integrity of believing only what people can prove to you is merely double standards and a sham: I accused you of being innecessarily argumentative and you shouted that I had provided no evidence!!!
This is one of your favourite forms of disagreement, I suspect because it makes you feel you have logic on your side, but the asymmetry in the demand for proof is bias, and concluding that people who you disagree with are wrong because they failed in your one-person prosecution, judge & jury court is naive.
Your court was not constituted to discover truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You should be surprised every time it finds it.