Clearly my argument 'one possible explanation of why poor communities would disproportionately exhibit that behavior' is weak and one saying literally 'other be

Clearly my argument 'one possible explanation of why poor communities would disproportionately exhibit that behavior' is weak and one saying literally 'other behaviors at that income level are incompatible with life' is not? I've merely made a conjecture, I find it extremely weak, obtuse, and unproductive to just say welp 'incompatible with life' as if that is that. My argument was a mere possibility. The counter argument was a factual statement about literal 'incompatible with life.' The latter is much stronger, in fact my counterparty made a statement much more closer to how one who believes they are the suppository of all wisdom would behave. Going back and phrasing this as "sharing any bounty" being synonymous with "cooperation", and then using cooperation in connection with saying I got it in reverse, is about as bad faith as it gets.