Non-logic says nothing and everything at the same time.
Something that says everything is definitionally meaningless.So no, you're not also also saying everything, you're just saying nothing.
Maybe in some other debate, it would help you a lot if you called my words illogical.
Again, logic is the foundation of acceptable thought. You either follow it, or you are by definition incoherent and therefore your words/claims/arguments are meaningless. You don't get a pass on that because you decided to challenge logic itself (all while ironically using logic to challenge it).
But sadly, when we are trying to prove logic, it gets a bit more complicated than that.
No, it doesn't. It gets more confusing sometimes when dealing with someone who doesn't understand the first law of logic and is therefore either unwilling or incapable of seeing that he's using it to point to something he himself defines as it not being applicable to, but there is no complication here. You cannot prove logic, you also cannot disprove logic.
That second part is the one you always conveniently leave out. That's what your entire case is built on, and the problem you are blind to is that you really seem to think that's not what you're doing but it absolutely is. It is only when you accept that logic is insufficient and therefore in need of validation itself that any of this could make any sense to you.
"This sentence is false"
What you're doing is functionally equivalent to explaining why this sentence is true or false. It's neither.
