First, let's address the core of the argument: the idea that it feels "REAL DAMNED GOOD" to eviscerate someone's argument based on morality and emotions with evidence and logic. This statement is dripping with ego, isn't it? It's not about the pursuit of truth or the betterment of the discourse; it's about the personal satisfaction of "winning" an argument. The ego thrives on this kind of intellectual dominance, but logic and evidence should be tools for understanding, not weapons for victory.