My interlocutor, for whatever reason, refused at every turn to just say “oh okay the data seem to agree with you,” and kept throwing stuff at the wall until he eventually claimed that it didn’t actually matter if a typical person was better off or not, at which point I decided we didn’t need to talk anymore. But if you want to pick that up and have a data-based disagreement with any of it, we can rap.

The reason is he started with a conclusion and worked backwards. Any data you provide to the contrary is “fake news” from Democrats, irrelevant, etc. You can’t use reason on the unreasonable. That’s why they “gish gallop” from topic to topic, just trying to see if something sticks.