Dallas’ best is better than anyone else in the NFC. On our best day, we will not lose to anyone except KC on their best day.
This claim is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking skills will instantly recognize it as, at best, wishful thinking and, at worst, pure gibberish. How would one go about establishing its truth? Doubtless in any scenario in which Dallas lost you would simply claim they hadn't played their best. And that would be all too easy to do since there would be ready examples of days on which they'd surrendered fewer points, or scored more, or whatever.
Meantime, on its face the claim seems implausible. There's a team in the NFC that boasts the GOAT at QB, a plethora of weapons and a D that showed last year in the playoffs that it can be dominant, including against KC. There's another team with an MVP candidate at QB, the league's leading receiver, the most dominant player the league has seen on D this past decade, arguably the league's best DB and, in general, a roster that can match ours star for star.
Is it possible to recognise that Dallas has a really good team but that there are other really good teams that could beat them, without assuming that they beat themselves, or is that necessarily cowardly in your world view?
For someone who feels free to suggest that the board is full of intellectual midgets you're not demonstrating terribly enviable reasoning skills.