This observation in no way distinguishes a failure on your part to understand something that should have been apparent from a failure on my part to clearly convey something. All that we learn from this observation is that there was a failure of communication.

The first line of my first reply stated my point: you didn't debunk EP as a whole (despite claiming to).

I illustrate the nature of the problem with an analogy (where the flaw is clearer) in the second paragraph.

I make it concrete in the third paragraph, distinguishing what you have and haven't done, and why it matches the analogy, and why can't be used to debunk EP as a whole.

In the fourth paragraph I tell you how one could debunk EP as a whole.

In the fifth through seventh paragraphs, I give a concrete example of an argument against EP as a whole, along the lines of my suggestion, using specific results that you had indicated you agreed with, but using them to argue for different conclusions.

In the eighth paragraph, I give caveats.

In the last paragraph I reiterate my primary complaint, the same one that I led with. The final paragraph's last sentence is, I admit, rather poorly phrased and I wouldn't blame anyone who couldn't figure out what it was about.

So I don't see how any of your charges here are correct about lack of clarity (c.f. [your post is] "debunking the application of, but not the method of, evolutionary psychology"), lack of "linearity" (I followed a standard argumentative form: state thesis, develop it, provide evidence, re-state at end), or concreteness (I gave a concrete example).

I suppose there's one caveat to that. It is true that I often use a somewhat complex sentence structure. This conveys appropriate caveats and uncertainties, which are typically important in arguments. People used to especially simple language may find this hard to follow. But given the complexity if the argument you were making, I don't imagine that this applies to you.

I dislike inferring others' mental states, because it's highly error-prone and usually not all that helpful even if done correctly, but if we were to take the alternative hypothesis that you were angry that I offered criticism instead of praise, and got flustered by reading my hypothetical EP-style argument supporting the idea to not worry about rape, and responded based on that, I think that fits the observations of what we each have written at least as well as that I wasn't being "clear, linear, or concrete".

I don't wish to be gratuitously antagonistic, but I'm not going to accept very much responsibility for a failure unless it's actually substantially mine. I do accept that I could have spared a few more words for the positive aspects of your story (it is well-researched compared to the typical Medium fare).

But keep in mind, my response wasn't only to you; it's also to anyone else who is reading the comments. When discussing with close friends in private, I make the effort to tailor my communications to better work with their personal quirks. In a public forum, however, that seems neither desirable nor feasible. A reply to "Look, I did X!" that reads "No you didn't, and here's why" seems well within bounds of what public discourse is for.