We do need to differentiate between the types of games though. Games like Candy Crush and Fortnite are very different. Candy Crush is a game that lends itself well to playing on a phone while Fortnite plays better with a larger screen and physical controls.
Because if you want someone who's taken an emotionally charged position to look at objective fact, you need to present the data in ways that minimize the bias they might perceive.
I don't think that is a fair stance on the response to the original argument that was presented. If someone comes with a too general, and too hyperbolic statement, I don't think it is necessary to "present the data in ways that minimize the bias they might perceive". It can, for sure, be worth while to do so, if your goal is to educate. Or, it can just confuse everyone, because, maybe they did mean it exactly as it was stated, and the person who is wrong isn't who you think it is. In my personal opinion, just be fair, try to stick to facts, and have earnest discussions. If they didn't mean the hyperbolic statement, the onus is on them to clarify, not for anyone else to tip toe possible interpretations.
To summarize:
> Nobody _wants_ to play games on mobile devices, not even kids
Was responded to with a factual statement on the size of that business that "no one wants to take part of", suggesting that perhaps there might be some correlation between a 77B revenue market, and some desire for it to exist by the consumers.
To which you argued that one should make a distinction on the type of games. Which brings us full circle to my point, that, no. The original did not make such a distinction, so neither should the refutation of it require such considerations. Whether or not that is the best approach for the sake of convincing anyone is a separate matter.
