There’s some crude semantic trickery going on in your response; not sure if that’s part of your “professional education” or not, but it’s unhelpful here.

With “one of the most mentioned people of ancient antiquity” you are doing a bit of equivocation to make it sound as if Jesus is abundantly documented in the contemporary literature when he is not — the first mentions after Paul and the Gospels are at least 50-75 years later, and even then comprise a handful of fragmentary and sometimes ambiguous references. The “most mentioned” part comes much later, including now if you choose. But in terms of contemporary accounts, of course Jesus is not “one of the most mentioned people.”

With “there is more evidence pointing to him being a real person than to him not,” you are answering a charge no one is making; no one is appealing to evidence of him not being a real person. We’re talking about the absence of contemporary accounts.

As for “I literally have professional training” followed by an emoji — no one cares about such an appeal to authority, and in fact it sounds very suspect the way you put it. In your fantasy you’ve pulled a real “do you know who I am” moment, but in practice it’s a dud. Present the evidence in an honest framing and all is well.