Yeah, tell me more about motte and bailey bullshit.

I have explained that it meets the definition of genocide.

Now you're saying that you don't think it's genocide but you've retreated from the point about it meeting the formal definition of genocide to a point that it doesn't meet your personal definition of genocide.

There's a term for that.

You've retreated from the point that killing clergy isn't genocide to the point that targeting an institution isn't genocide.

There's a term for that too.

The fact that people have a strong attachment towards a major cultural institution doesn't change that one iota.

Okay. Who is arguing that? How does this point change the fact that these actions meet the definition of genocide?

You are the one sitting on a massive burden of proof here

Is this your way of asking for a source?

You're doing your best imitation of a Redditor wringing your hands and using debatebro terms and being as edgy as possible, you ignore anything that I have said which is inconvenient to your argument, and you throw a whole bunch of stuff at me that you expect me to answer while you dodge any questions that I ask you.

If you can't find it in you to have an actual discussion then, as I said before, take your own advice and fuck right off.