Extrapolation != strawman.
Let me explain this to you, so you understand.
You cannot use your premise as a part of your conclusion.
The subject we are debating is "Are the Omega aliens higher dimensional"
You cannot then say or infer or elude to "I don't need to because they're Higher dimensional" because you're using your premise as evidence.
So in logic there's a concept of a "multiple-conclusion argument", for instance
P1 - All mammals respire via oxygen
P2 - Dolphins are mammals
C1 - Therefore, dolphins respire via oxygen
P3 - Animals that respire via oxygen need oxygen to live
C2 - Therefore, dolphins need oxygen to live
In this argument (C1) serves as one of the premises for (C2) and this is logically valid as (C1) is substantiated via premises that are independent from (C2), thus avoiding circularity. If I were to apply this to our argument, with some simplification, it'll look like the follow:
P1 - The omega species are from an incalculable dimension
P2 - The term 'dimension' relates to spatial dimensions (in this context)
P3 - The term 'incalculable' relates to a transfinite value (in this context)
C1 - Therefore, the omega species come from a higher dimensional plane
P4 - A being from a higher dimensional plane can be weak* if and only if they are downsized
P5 - The omega species are weak
C2 - Therefore, the omega species are downsized
* - by 'weak' we are referring to be comparable to 3-dimensional constructs and energy yields
I see no point in needlessly responding to your other points given you admit in your comment to intentionally strawmanning me and you're mostly just repeating this same argument that I'm engaging in circularity which only demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding logic (not to say people need to study symbolic logic to debate, but you're the one who brought it up to try and get a dunk on me only to misuse it and in an incredibly rude way too, so I think it's telling at where you intentions lie).
