Of course, you implied something. Because "interesting" is simply not a way to describe something that was known. And you implied it again by stating the complete of utter lack of evidence of voter fraud. Despite poll watchers, thousands of lawyers, safeguards in place, and lawyers for Trump when questioned in court saying they aren't aware of voter fraud. Somehow doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The only person I find worse to debate than someone who's irrational is someone who's dishonest.
And another thing, putting up strawmen and false equivalencies doesn't make your argument better. It makes it worse.