I understand argumentation.

That is, I understand how to work with words and concepts so that they are based in reality, and despite the work done on them, keep in touch with reality.

If one does not do this, the downside is that one is considerably less likely to have reality go the way one wants. In particular, if "anti-racist education" is supported using poor arguments that do not keep the conclusions attached to reality, then it's less likely to reduce institutional, structural, and individual racism in reality. So yes, I get it that the latter is the goal. But if the latter is the goal, forming good arguments is important. (If the goal is something else, then maybe the argument quality doesn't matter. For instance, virtue signaling is an example of something where the signal sometimes appears in the form of an argument, but the quality of the argument is irrelevant: the entire point is to let everyone know whose side you're on, not to reason productively.)

The context is that a commenter, Bren Kelly, thought that Allison's presentation of Ms. Elliott's quote was a compelling, maybe even conclusive piece of evidence that Elliott's method was bad.

I explained (to you) why I agree with the commenter that this seems to be what Allison was going for. If it's not what she was going for, fine, but the commenter seemed to think it was, and that seemed plausible enough to me. However, if that was the goal, the evidence was not of the kind needed to stay in touch with the reality of the matter, and is thus "terrible evidence" to support that point. We "don't have anyone to compare to" in this context because Allison provided no-one to compare to.

Anyway, do you agree that the commenter who I replied to was completely off-base in their praise?

If that is the case, then in that, at least, we are in complete agreement. I simply explained why the reasoning was bad. (You, instead, explained why Ms. Elliott was, herself, not bad.)

If you believe Bren Kelly's praise of Allison's use of the Ms. Elliott example does have any merit, can you please explain why?

Note that if you have trouble understanding my writing, and you actually want to understand rather than pick out phrases to attack, you can ask large language models for help. Then you don't have to worry about me hegemonically, necessarily, and unilaterally dictating things. LLMs generally understand text written in my style quite well, and they have infinite patience. I have a fair bit, too, but not as much as they do.