The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context

Which was unnecessary and irrelevant because the context was already established. That’s called “derailing the conversation”.

They challenged the definitions of violence.

No they didn’t, they plainly agreed.

They didn’t admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout.

It clearly did not. They said that violence did not include property damage, then later admitted that it did. I don’t know how you can claim they “challenged the definition of violence” without disagreeing that property damage is violence.