It matter because if the comment about causing brain damage to babies wasn&#x27;t sarcasm, then it was extreme and a false dichotomy, so your accusation against my rhetorical style would apply there equally.<p>You have chosen to label it as sarcasm to make your attack on the style rather than the substance of my point look reasonable - that&#x27;s what I mean by it &#x27;suiting you&#x27;.<p>I don&#x27;t actually believe that the point about brain damaging babies was sarcasm.  I think the poster was being serious because that is one of the harms caused by malaria.  I don&#x27;t at all see how this could be construed as a sarcastic comment.<p>If sarcasm was irrelevant, why did you base you use it to account for the false dichotomy?