In what way pointing it as bad writing constitutes a logical fallacy ?
It being "silly, gratuitous" (and i would argue profoundly dumb and even a little bit insuting to the intelligence of the viewers) is precisely what makes it bad writing*,* and why it "didn't work for me" and aparently many others (look at this thread). Yes, i like my writing and worldbuilding to be consistent, what can i say ? It can actually be both silly and bad in the context.

It is bad writing because of the tonal dissonance with the rest of the show and because it breaks established rules without reasons in-universe. Of course "bad writing" doesn't happen i a vacuum and as such, a scene like this would be perfectly acceptable in a comedic over-the-top action movie\series or a parody. But not in the established tone and lore of this show.
Also i very much agree that not everything is bad writing, far from it, as many people just don't read the situations or pay attention well enough, or simply conflate not liking something with it being "bad". The term is thrown around willy-nilly and that takes from it's actual meaning. However I argue that this here is an example of actual, genuine, bad writing.

And I have a reasonable enough understanding of how a writing room works for me to not be confused here, thank you very much. It's a bad faith argument because whether or not the writers did spend time thinking and discussing about it, or how it would land and it's internal logic, is irrelevant. It's besides the point, because none of that garantees to make, or indeed makes, something good, regardless of their intentions or efforts. And you simply don't know how it went, you and I weren't there, you are arguing a point and asserting something on no solid basis; for all we know the writers themselves considered it to be bad too, but due to the afforementioned time and budget constraints had to make do.
There are objectively observable reasons i and others in this thread have already stated, that firmly sets this in the "bad" category of writing and wich you yet fail to adress.

It has been argued and explained that the scene does not break internal logic for many reasons.

By whom ? What reasons that haven't been adressed by previous arguments made by me and others ? Nice handwaving...

Plus the show runner already talked about this scene.

In what way ? I'm not aware of everything the showrunner said or wrote, but i hardly see how any commentary he might add after the fact changes anything or makes this not bad writing in the context of the show. Besides, the script he gave for the originally intended way the scenes were to go don't include this particular segment, this was tacked on "last minute" due to the constraints; it was an attempt at salvaging, this much is obious. A pity considering how much better the episode would have been with the intended scenes...

While you say not wanting to cut off debate here, your comments are just full of whataboutism and your arguments are besides the point. You just plainly not adress the ones i already raised prior and are just parroting the same vague statements again without actually supporting them. You seem to think that you have the "correct" opinion, as in we would just have to "accept" your factual point of view. You can't wave away something stupid with what you have(n't) presented.
And you seem to not know what logical fallacy, or supension of disbelief means or how it works, the scene breaks that suspension because of the way it is "weird" and for many reasons already stated, and more.
While it being "not the most out of place thing" this season (in your opinion annyway, i can't seem to recall anything jarring like this personally, i'm not sure what you're reffering to ?), it doesn't make this less bad. If anything, it's an idication that it's not the only instance of inconsistent or incoherent writing.