Your comments about reality read like a contentious claim to me. Retroactively calling a contentious claim a "description" does nothing to remove the need for argumentative support.

This is still not making sense as a reply in the context. If you had expressed disagreement with a claim of mine then we could use arguments to try to persuade people about the subject. But if you present a refutation of something I didn't say then it is an error for me to present arguments for whatever straw man you happened to to attack.

The following is the claim I do make:

One of the points of engaging in extensive debate about systems of morality is that while doing so you have the opportunity to influence the way your community thinks about how people should behave. This allows you to gain practical advantages for yourself and cause harm to your rivals.

I'm not going to provide an extended treatise on that subject here - it isn't appropriate for the context. But if you do actually disagree with me then that gives you a clear position to argue against and I will leave you to do so without refutation.