Going meta on the logic of the argument, you've made a quantification error.
The parent post said "Men need to be arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks to get women's attention" and you responded "it's definitely possible to find a mate without [being arrogant]".
The fact that there are exceptions does not argue against the generalization; if you want to attack his point you need to attack it in general.
I don't really understand your objection. I'll try to explain what I understood and tried to say, and perhaps you can tell me where I was unclear/incorrect?
The original statement, on a literal reading, is universal ("the only way for men to get women's attention is to be a jerk"). Clearly, this was not what was intended: you call it a generalization, and that's the only reasonable reading, I'll agree.
As a counterpoint, I offered my personal experience. Admittedly, the plural of anecdote is not data; however, the fact that I know of literally no case where being a jerk got someone a girl does suggest that a closer look may be in order.
This argument works as a counterexample against a universal statement, but that doesn't mean you can't argue a more statistical version of truth based on these observations.
The parent post said "Men need to be arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks to get women's attention" and you responded "it's definitely possible to find a mate without [being arrogant]".
The fact that there are exceptions does not argue against the generalization; if you want to attack his point you need to attack it in general.