i've already been clear,

The illusion of transparency at work? You mentioned ad hominem in your first comment, and I left it unaddressed because I thought it was a rhetorical flourish. (Which would be understandable, given the context.)

calling people names is not argument

I don't think I ever used it as such.

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments." -- Stephen Bond, The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy

My argument, which has thus far not been directly challenged, is that choosing a loaded term such as 'illegal immigrant' makes it harder to engage in useful thought experiments.

From there, I reasoned that tribalism (etc.) is a likely reason for people to prefer to use that term.

And like I said, you are free to disagree. But if that isn't the reason, what is?

Are you a stickler for rules and authority (do you think people should scrupulously follow the speed limit, never use weed, never 'pirate' software, etc.) to the point where you use similar terminology to describe these topics?

If not, how do you justify having very strong negative feelings about illegal immigration, favoring unforgiving policies, using language that makes it sound extremely bad, and so forth?

i can't enjoy reasonable discussion with someone who doesn't know what words mean

Which words are you saying I don't understand the meaning of? 'Illegal'?

i'm not giving up out of frustration or loss. i am ceasing to waste both of our time.

That's not how this situation looks to me. I could be wrong. But my impression is that you are employing ad hominem (claiming that logic isn't my strong point) in order to avoid critically examining deeply held views. If the goal was to make a non-fallacious argument that calls my logic skills into question, you need to first establish what the weak point in my logic is.

I didn't actually mean any of my posts to be insulting, and while I understand your offense (and apologize for causing it), it is possible to make valid arguments and insults at the same time.

the trivium method and quadrivium would be an excellent start.

As I understand it, this is a fancy way of repeating the ad-hominem that I don't understand logic, unless you think there are rhetorical or grammatical shortcomings.

Actually, I can see that I did make some rhetorical mistakes (unintentional insults).

i wish you well. you seem genuine in your desire, at least. good luck. also, be wary of telling people what they should and shouldn't do. control is an addiction, of the worst kind.

Understood, and thank you for the well wishes. I did not intend my post or comments come across as an attempt to control others, but I can see how it came across that way and I'm sorry for that. My goal is to provide useful explanations to help people understand, not try to control anyone.

This is a topic I haven't debated many times yet (prompted by negative reactions to Gary Johnson's words on the topic). Thus I have only a crude understanding of what rhetorical traps to avoid as far as causing unnecessary offense. I'm not a fan of the approach I've seen employed a lot online where one attempts to rile people with insensitive remarks to the point they cannot think straight.