One of the greatest problems in argumentation over the internet is that people gravitate towards acting as if every statement is intended to define a universal truth so they can argue against that strawman.

I don't think (or rather, want to think) that people are being intentionally malicious. Instead, I think this is a scaling issue. Natural language being scaled in ways it isn't prepared to (e.g. over the internet to random strangers from all walks of life with very different intentions).

I've been looking for platforms where one can maybe more formally encode their thoughts, so that the argumentation and debating skill barrier is lowered / eliminated, along with manipulation. And I did find some, but they don't quite hit the spot, and even if they did, people aren't really on them, so it doesn't matter sadly.

Indeed; thank you. That's certainly what happened here, together with ad hominem whataboutism.

P.S. "please do flag and downvote rather."

I don't have that capability, else I would certainly use it.

"Surely you can appreciate that their comment was not written in agreement with or support for you"

No, I disagree; I think that is exactly what it was--the subject of the comment was your comment, not mine--you wrote of my statement as being a universal truth, not v.v.

Unsurprisingly, on every point where you and I disagree, I think that I am right and you are wrong.

I think it is best that, from now on, neither of us speak to or about each other.