You're having a different discussion than what I'm trying to make.

Im aware of the difference between botanical and culinary definition. Im aware a strawberry isn't botanically a berry. Im aware a pumpkin is a berry. I'm aware that raspberries are accessory fruits, that peanuts aren't nuts, etc.

I'm saying that your peach example isn't going to illustrate that difference to someone who doesn't already get it.

I didn't make my argument clear, for sure.
The initial person called the dry fruit a seed.
Then the other person countered with an example of a fruit with a single seed where you don't call the whole fruit the seed. But importantly they didn't establish why the first person should consider those two things the same. The first person simply didn't accept that the dry fruit was a fruit in the first place, so using another, typical, fruit for example isn't going to help.

My example was trying (ineffectively) to show that it appears as an apples/orange comparison unless you already understand.

But now, despite explicitly saying I know that a strawberry isn't a berry in my original reply, I'm being told that I'm disagreeing with science, rather than with their example.

I can admit my feelings get hurt when someone gets mad at me for something I didn't say.

Can you admit your failure in reading comprehension?
Can you at least point out where you think I said that strawberry "seeds" aren't the actual fruit, so that I can know how I was unclear about it?