No, I don't mind correcting myself by saying that I don't hear people say that. I read a lot of non-fiction and I do read people saying that in order to write non-fiction, you need to be able to write at a sixth (sometimes it's "eighth") grade level. Google that and you'll find a lot being said about how someone at a sixth grade reading level understanding your writing is a sign that you are a good writer and can explain shit.

But, Steve, you googling that and arguing about this is a perfect example of what you do wrong in debate. You can't (or don't) pull out the larger point that was being made and you get stuck on arguing irrelevant things, taking the bait on every distraction. That Einstein said that is not the point. That some people say that is not the point. Because no one would possibly mean it logically. If a 5-year-old can't understand how rockets are launched, do we stop launching them because they must be false, then? When you first made your point, it sounded like you really believed that if a five-year-old can't understand it, then it's bullshit. It sounds like that's what you mean because you have said that children understand what a man and a woman is and if children can't understand what I am arguing for (though they mostly can, just without the higher understanding theories about how language and meaning get constructed), then it must be false. THAT was the point you seemed to be arguing. And in response, yes, I said "no one says X because some things obviously won't be understandable by a child and that doesn't make them true." And instead of arguing with what my actual point was there, you went and GOOGLED a phrase to prove that I can be wrong about something. Huh??? I don't care what the quote is! I care about the argument I'm making: Some concepts are too complicated for children to understand and they're STILL TRUE.

That you and others don't understand how and why society is shifting and how it makes total sense to others, is not evidence that your notions are more true.

In fact there's a logical fallacy for that.

You're guilty of several logical fallacies, actually:

Appeal to Popularity

Appeal to Tradition

Hasty Generalization (prison and bathroom design problems)

False Dilemma

Equivocation (like with "argue")

Fallacy of Composition

Belief Bias

Anchoring

Slippery Slope

And the constant fallacy you're guilty of making: RED HERRING.

In order to win a debate, you can't use logical fallacies. They immediately discount an argument's point. It's like they erase them as irrelevant garbage. If I can show that you're making a logical fallacy, you might as well have said nothing. Without logic, all we have is emotion. If we decided everything based on emotion, it would be chaos.