I'm arguing first that he's wrong about Biden not proposing "law".
Second, and more obsessively, that his insistence on a point so obviously wrong suggests his purpose is rhetorical rather than clarifying. I.e. he cares more about how things appear than helping people see what they really are.
Subsequently I don't seem to be doing much more than throwing food. Maybe I should unplug my computer until I'm in a better mood.
It's an argument over rhetoric, and those suck. Alas it's one reason people get away with rhetoric -- it's hard to tell who's being rhetorical and who's in earnest.
You know "learn to program or be programmed?" Argument is like that, only far more important. Please learn to recognize good arguments from bad, so you can call people like me on my shit. Because otherwise you're reliant on people like me for that, and, well, we'll abuse your trust.
I'm largely saying he's arguing more to confuse than explain. And that he might not actually be aware he's doing so.
I think this sort of thing is important. Most people think this sort of thing is annoying. It's true that arguments like this are usually a waste of time, and this seems no different.
Maybe your your argument is too smart for me, though.