No, I get that people type on mobile, and that autocorrect is a bitch. The thing that struck me more was that you hedged your bets like 4 times in the same sentence, against someone calling you out for not having any evidence of what you were claiming, but then you still end up using your claim to extrapolate an argument with what seems like a relatively large amount of certainty.

Also that the sentence was kind of repetitive, which struck me as funny. "probably 100% probable" is just saying the same thing twice, saying that something is "probably" the case is the same thing as saying it's "100% probable", and the "100%" part of that strikes me as completely superfluous. "on average strictly" is kind of contradictory, you usually wouldn't claim something to be "on average" but then also say that it is "strictly" that way, because an average is, you know, an average, it's an aggregate of numbers, including outliers. So it can't really "strictly" conform to whatever you're wanting it to conform to, unless it's an exact match of the average, or unless you don't actually mean "strictly" in the strictest sense. I dunno, I give it a C-.

The argument also strikes me as wrong, I would think pitbulls probably do just attack people more ,and with more aggressiveness, than other dog breeds. Maybe not that much more, relative to, say, german shepards, but say, compared to irish wolfhounds, I would think so, yeah. I think if an irish wolfhoud was attacking someone at the same rates, with the same aggression, as pitbulls, we would see them kill a lot more people than pitbulls do. Pitbulls aren't actually that big, relative to other dogs.