Since you are probably going to object to that: I can say "Airplanes can't fly because the sky is blue". That is not an argument, I would need to show why the blueness matters
What you do is indicate it is up to me to fill in the blanks (how blueness messes up air travel) and then refute. This is preposterous.
And no, it is not sufficient to say "Well, not only is the sky blue, the forest has snakes too". You keep doing this. Platitudes like "scale" are not enlightening to me.
If instead I were to say "when the sky is blue, the atmosphere gets super hot, so the wings of the plane melt and fall off", then I would have at least a real (albeit poor) argument
You were on the right track a bit with the aging population argument, except of course you missed that the same could be used for families. At least that was an attempt.
You keep making this unfounded assertions. They always show to be wrong when we investigate them. Then you go on to new ones. I think you actually manage to fool yourself with this.
To use your formula, I explained how your comparison of A and B broke down due to factors c, d, e, and f were disimilar, and it is those qualities that matter when comparing A and B.
I have not gone on to k New ones. Funny because you said I was repeating them before. I'm still waiting for any attempt to show why the disimilar qualities I gave were wrong.
I did refute it. c, d, e ...k, they are all of the form of my new airplane argument platitudes. It does not matter how many platitudes you add, they are still just platitudes.
They are not in the form of your airplane argument at all actually. You have yet to actually refute the points. You are just hand waving them away by misinterpreting them.