I think you fail to understand the criticism that I and many other people have tried to address you already. At least, that is my understanding of what seems to be emerging from your posts.
A fact is a fact whether it is proved or not. But when this fact is questionned, saying “it is a fact because it is a fact” will hardly convince anyone.
A personal experience that does match with a statement does not warrant that statement to be a fact. At best, they can be in correlation.
As such, when someone asks you to elaborate on one of your statement, answering with “I believe what I said earlier is correct, and I stand by it”, does not answer the question, as it adds nothing to the conversation and often leaves the interlocutor to feel confused or cheated.
I do believe you are not trolling, but I regretfully have to admit that I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that arguing with you more often than not limits the discussion to an argument on semantics instead of opening an actual debate.
Whereas the kryptonite to the Mercy discussion would be an undefeatable oponent, I find MegaDodo to be more of a hollow thus powerless kryptonite. From the outside, it seems to be actual kryptonite, but when you start scrubbing at its surface, it is empty.
They are not interested in taking part to the conversation, but they are faking it by using sophisms and arguing semantics.
Moreover, I do not find accurate to minimise the Mercy discussion to anecdote and emotion. Most Mercy advocates do bring logic points and statistics when trying to explain the flaws they see in current Mercy’s design, as this thread has shown.