My God, you are insufferable.

You know what's funny? I don't think I've ever had an argument on this platform where the person I was arguing against didn't suddenly have some sort of credentials in the very subject we're discussing. It's incredibly convenient.

It is quite obvious that whatever university you went to did not do a very good job teaching you what scientists, historians, and academics actually do in their respective fields.

You are claiming that the Revolutionary War was essentially a class conflict specifically intended to enrich America's wealthy elite.

I have presented you with facts and evidence demonstrating that this characterization is not supported by the historical record. I even pointed out that roughly 20–30% of the colonial population remained loyal to the Crown, meaning that there was substantial support for the British side within the colonies themselves. There were also foreign powers, most notably France, that allied themselves with the American revolutionaries.

From everything you've shown me and told me so far, apparently I'm supposed to be lacking some supposedly "nuanced" understanding of the Revolutionary War that just happens to align with your very particular interpretation of it.

But please understand this, because apparently your university failed to teach you this distinction: you are presenting facts about the Revolution, but your conclusions do not follow from those facts.

Your argument essentially amounts to:

"There was propaganda during the Revolution + wealthy people participated in the revolutionary government + officers tended to be wealthy + poor people fought in the war = therefore the Revolution was an economic war in which wealthy Americans used poor Americans as cannon fodder."

That's not an argument. That's a sequence of observations followed by a conclusion that hasn't actually been demonstrated.

You even brought up something about genocide, which I genuinely don't understand. What genocide are you talking about, and how exactly does that follow from the evidence you're presenting about the Revolutionary War? Is that another conclusion you're importing from some modern political framework and projecting backward onto the eighteenth century?

This is precisely the problem with your reasoning. I am not disputing that wealthy people had economic interests. I'm not disputing that propaganda existed. I'm not disputing that wealthy men held positions of political authority. None of those things are controversial.

What I am disputing is your leap from those facts to the claim that the Revolutionary War was fundamentally an economic class war waged by wealthy Americans for their own enrichment.

If that's your conclusion, then demonstrate it. Show the evidence that establishes the causal connection rather than continuing to list unrelated facts and treating the conclusion as self-evident.

The most infuriating and dangerous person on the face of this planet is someone who is stupid but genuinely believes himself to be intelligent. And you are making a remarkably strong case for that particular category.

So, once again: the problem isn't that the facts you're presenting are necessarily false. The problem is that the conclusions you're drawing from them are not supported by the facts you've presented.

So far, your entire argument has been:

Fact about the Revolutionary War → unsupported personal conclusion → repeat.

I'd say you're a waste of time, but you are providing me with entertainment, so I suppose I should thank you for that.