The debate between incels and incel gaslighters is facts vs mental gymnastics

Take the topic of the dogpill.

What do incels have to say on this on incelwiki?

They start clearly: "The dogpill is a blackpill that suggests that human females prefer sex with dogs over sex with human males. ", in other words, "there's this theory, it goes as follows, here are its origins".

1. Fact: There are women who have sex with dogs, yet no women who have sex with incels
2. Fact: There are literally forums devoted to women having sex with dogs or fantasizing about it, yet not a single forum devoted to having sex with incels

I think just these two facts are enough for one to draw his own conclusions. This immediately obliterates any "take a shower bro", "womyn won't sleep with you because you don't respect them", "learn social skills sweetie" etc, because a dog has NONE of those properties, yet is favored by women.

What does for example Vaush, one of those people who like to gaslight incels, have to say about this? He starts with the word "misogyny". Then he talks for a few paragraphs about how the red pill bad even though incels and redpillers are different people and not even friends. No facts and no conclusion, just opinions on things not even relevant to the topic. Then some more paragraphs on what the red pill used to mean yada yada, as if we didn't know this already, as if it was relevant

There's

1. a picture of Morpheus
2. a mention of Trump
3. a mention of 9/11

all of which have nothing to do with women favoring dogs over non-chad, unpopular males. Only after 6 paragraphs of establishing the scene with his opinions does he even start mention the dog pill. He drones on about how the theory bad. The only fact he mentions is the illegality of bestiality - which is relevant only in the SEO sense, as in: it is about sex with dogs. But it proves and suggests nothing about the topic which is "women prefer dogs to sub8 males"