1: you are not being shat on, your ideas are being challenged.
2: you definitely oversimplify things you don't agree with, much like Ant.
3: no one here thinks that your self-assigned homework assignments are reliable
4:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
5: injecting reality into the situation is very out of character for you. Your style has more of a self-aggrandizing parrot approach to it.
Bonus: I wish you actually understood the sides of people you were arguing against. If you look at my post I actually pointed out the outlandish cost of the wall as it is, which some might consider to be the same as
agreeing with you on some level. Plus, DWV's post is not a statement on the abstract concept of the economic/pragmatic nature of wall itself, just that particular issue that you raised with it. There is a big difference. I guess that brings it back to number two.