you were not criticizing, so much as insisting that I had no solution at all, which is very different. Furthermore, the "paper shields" example actually does provide no solution at all and can therefore be dismissed as an analogy to my proposed actual solution.
This is the exact reason why paper shields example is right for this.
1. According to yourself, I am saying your "solution" is no solution at all
2. You agree that alternative solution is not required for criticism. (I assert that saying your solution is no solution at all is an extreme form of criticism).
3. Hence paper shields, which are no solution at all, demonstrate perfectly why no real solution needs to be proposed when another "solution" is declared to be no solution at all.
If you can't even comprehend this much, I am afraid no one should have let you within a mile of your high school debate team lest you infect them with idiocy.
Anyway, since you have even stopped defending your idea of a device acting against its owner in the face of rooting etc., I guess you have accepted the technological illiteracy of your argument. So it does seem we are done here.