"Dandelions are an incredible gift from nature" is not an argument.
Other edible plants I listed, but that does not make them gifts, their edibility is incidental.
You noticeably failed to address my point that nature's 'gift' includes an unpleasant process of killing and carnivory which I assume is pretty bloody unpleasant to the subjects of a hunt, given that they don't run towards the predators.
> Upthread, both you and your parent commenter made the latter kind
He made no such argument, just described nature in anthromorphic terms
> Either one can make a rigorous argument, XOR one can make an informal one.
That's a misunderstanding based on the assumption that there is a clear dividing point between formal and informal. If you had any background in mathematics you would know this is not true. There is no absolute definition of formality, it comes in degrees.
> Ergo, their argument is as valid or invalid as yours
Assuming you're claiming that we're both using informal arguments, this is mistaken as well because informal arguments can have degrees of evidential backing; some informal arguments are stronger than others.
On the whole I get the impression you just want to score points here rather than learn anything or actually help anybody. Shall we not continue?