See, this is the crucial difference between a valid point and a mere opinion. A valid point has some grounding in fact. I generally start with a news article or historical article. Sometimes I start with an editorial, which I admit is second best, but it's always one that references verifiable fact, and has a lucid argument. You start with opinion, pointedly ignore my cites while providing none of your own, and make everything about you and your opininon vs. me and what you would dismiss as merely my opinion.
Look around. Who's providing the bulk of article cites here? Hint: it's not you, and it's not anyone who sees things your way. Now why is that?
Yes, I might be wrong. But because I start with facts, I'm far less likely to be wrong than you are. I do on occasion admit that I'm wrong. But not to people who argue the way you do, for the simple reason that you haven't got what it takes to show me wrong. And it's not that I don't respond to legitimate questions. It's that you don't ask them.
I don't mind that you don't know how to argue a case logically. We all have to start somewhere, and it does take practise. Your failing is this: you have the gall to blame those who best you for not letting you win. With this attitude, how will you ever improve your skill level? And what of the truth? This is a free and open debate, not a mutual affirmation society. Those who are best prepared prevail here, not those who parrot the correct views. You're supposed to rise to the occasion. And to date, you have not.
It's not all about you and your posts, or me and my posts. It's not even primarily about you and your posts, or me and my posts. It's about what's actually going on out there in the outside world. And if you can't or won't grasp that, whose fault is that?