Debate:Can anybody on this site use fact/data/evidence to refute mgtow or are all the known facts in support of the theory...?

Proposition
There's a MGTOW page on this site, however the intellectual powerhouses of this site were unable to rebut the theory using any facts or evidence, but instead base their argument entirely on ad hominem and appeal to ridicule fallacies. Just wondering if there is anyone on this site who might be intelligent/rational enough to explain where mgtow theory goes wrong by actually citing some facts or evidence that would support their rebuttal or counter-argument to mgtow...something that goes beyond kidergarten name-calling or mangina virtue-signaling perhaps?RationalMGTOW (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "goes beyond kindergarten name calling" [literally two words later] "mangina"... oh dear. Boredatwork (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you started the debate,, you should state first state your propositions/beliefs. We aren't mind readers here. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on you, not us, to prove that MGTOW is based on facts (spoiler alert: it's not). ΛίνΡ (ομιλία) (συνεισφορές) @ 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Mangina virtue-signaling".
 * 22:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I get a bit of a troll vibe from him, so maybe he's not serious (that could just be wishful thinking, though). ΛίνΡ (ομιλία) (συνεισφορές) @ 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He left, how disappointing. GrammarCommie (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's either a troll or intellectually bankrupt. Pretty interchangeable, though the former is something you don't want to respond to. 04:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's either a troll or intellectually bankrupt. Pretty interchangeable, though the former is something you don't want to respond to. 04:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)