Several times you kept rearranging their phrasing or adding words that didn't exist in their fine print.
And I'm pretty sure when you interpret someone's words the wrong way that's called an "assumption". And I don't have "zero basis", nor did I say that you don't normally admit if you're wrong. And at no point am I claiming you were dishonest, I'm saying you're wrong about this point.
I said very clearly, in this specific situation your own words were saying, as followed-
This isn't saying "if I'm wrong I'll admit it". This is taking your argument and saying it's infallible because even in the case that you're wrong, you were still right in your logic.
Devil's advocate is just to present multiple sides of the argument just for the sake of arguing, or to put in better terms-
Which is exactly what you're doing. As you even said, you have no problem with the "assumption" (quotations because it's not an assumption). Which leaves the point of...if you have no problem with it, why are you still trying to argue it? And then doubling down to deflect blame on others is a bit weird, considering the following-a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.
The initial response from one was less than stellar, admittedly. But multiple people just pointed out the flaw in your argument and you were still confrontational about it, dismissing the exact terminology used to describe the deal.
And now you're trying to blame others for that?