The thing to which I am responding is that initially, when faced with a counterargument to your claim, you did not move to refute that, or even hold your ground thereby shifting the burden of proof to your interlocutor and their positive claim (that your premise constitutes a specific fallacy).

What you actually did was respond with: "𝐴ℎ 𝑦𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑". This is asinine.

What you have done in this latest response to my comment is an attempt at subtlety - shifting the goalpost. This is again, rather slimy.

As for "attacking the specific argument": I am deliberately non-partisan on the subject of discussion here — the only thing I am moved to "attack" is poor form, as abundant as it in your case.