Even the use of the term "virtue signalling" says a great deal about you and the source of your ideology already.
What you wrote there was far from rational.
Saying something COULD be true and conceding that it COULD be true BUT for it to be true it would need some hoop-jumping, hardly diminishes my premise, nor does it give it greater probability of the probability of it being true in comparison to other possibilities.
I will try to make a metaphor to see if this will work better for you. Lets say you were to go to a deserted island just off the coast and see small footprints. Someone tells you it is likely an elephants footprints and another person tells you it is likely a small dogs footprints but you consider that given the size the probability it that it is a mid-sized native mammal. Now While you could excuse the Elephant footprints out of hand, you are not to completely excuse the premise that it could belong to a small dog. Given it is a deserted island and not joined to the coast, for a small dog to reach there or survive there obviously is going to be unlikely, needing a stretch or specific intervention (being dump and abandoned or a long swim or the like) MORE likely is that the wildlife is native and isolated. Doesn't mean there would be no chance that dogs could not be there jut that the probability the footprints belong to a dog are less likely that it being native wildlife. However it also does not mean that Elephant footprints similarly being counter to mammal footprints theory as dog theory is counter does not mean that these two counter stances ought to be afforded the same consideration.
