No, you have completely misunderstood.
> it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion.
Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you are to find conflicting bits. So in that case, if you want to predict or explain the root cause of the behavior, you're going to need to use heuristics.
I really enjoy my friends description: He explained is as "I don't actually believe that Trump is a foreign asset. But given there's no daylight in between his behavior and the behavior of a foreign asset; you can just assume he is, and his decisions make sense." Feel free to substitute racist for asset if you'd like. The point is, your demand for magical proof is a red herring, you can predict correctly without it. Thus it's useful to describe them by the way they behave.
Technically, I guess you don't need to, you're arguments are a perfect counter example, about how you can just ignore the parts that make you feel icky, or conflict with what you assume you understand. Most people you talk to will not be able to perfectly explain the ideas they hold so if you want to learn what they might have to teach, you need to make some kind of attempt to engage with them, even if in the end you find you still disagree, you're very likely to learn something. But given how transparently you don't want to, I thought it might be nice to point out how obvious it is to anyone who might have something useful to explain, that you're just looking to get off on the one sided argument.
> and you want me to accept it? I’m sorry, but it sounds like BS.
I personally don't care what you accept. My reply wasn't attempting to convince you of anything. Just wanted to point out how obvious it is you're not even trying, just for the slim chance that you actually might want to.