Good example.
Go read Rocktoes’ takes on it in this thread :
Guy literally admits never having played a single match and is arguing tooth and nail that the OP and other people’s complaints are wrong and that the system is fun as is. Fun. Something he’d need to have played a game to even know.
That is why attacks on credibility are more effective than engaging with the argument. Because trolls don’t care about actually changing their minds if confronted by reason, they’ll just double, triple down.
That’s also why in trials, witness credibility gets brought up. It’s much easier to prove someone is not credible, than to prove they totes weren’t with the perp the night it happened as they are claiming.
It’s not a question of capability, it’s a question of effectiveness.
Proving someone’s lack of experience is easier than engaging with gaslighting and goalpost moves and general bad faith trolling.