I was hoping by providing sources that directly contradict the things you say,
If you haven't read your own sources, and are not willing to discuss them in detail, you are not engaging in good faith. It becomes a asymmetric time waster for a good faith discussion. Someone reads your paper, responds to it, and you drop 5 more without engaging in the first paper in depth. I'm not saying you would do that, but it is the common pattern, which is why i have stopped reading people's papers unless they are willing to engage in good faith discussions. Also, each of your quotes from papers is the author's opinions rather then the data from the paper.
contradicts several of the papers I quoted
Quoted, but you have admitted by omission you have not read.