For what it's worth, I think you and them are both wrong in this case. I don't like the idea of removing entire threads of arguments, if someone doesn't meet today's mod's expectations. There could be good points made, and people put work into the discussion. But there are people that would clog up their subreddit with baiting and trolling, so I admit the rules may be necessary.

I don't think you're baiting or trolling, but they are on to something with your behavior. That is, you seem more willing to argue than trying to find another way of looking at something. I think if your manner was different, there might not have been a problem. For example, you need more "X might be true, but Y" and "I concede X, but Y" rather than "but Y". Even if they're technically the same thing. I think you have more responsibility than the average person who replies to you, since it is /changemyview and not /arguments.

Another big problem is highlghted by the mod when it is said you cherry-pick a sentence from a post and argue that. The mod linked the post by archiesteel, and I'd have to agree with the assessment there. Another example I can give is from user Murrabbit's post "We are not obligated..." The argument was mostly about having limited time, but you use a single sentence about pattern-matching and argue on the detrimental ability of pattern-matching.

For what it's worth, I agree with your idea that one cannot technically determine a news article's falsehood based on previous articles of the same writer/publisher, but people will ignore things that are statistically a waste of time due to limited resources.