That's not what circular reasoning is, at best you could argue the argument is cyclical, though fully of your own volition because you ran out of counter-arguments. The burden of proof is with you, as they say, you're the one suggesting I have to take a certain amount of damage, I've calmly explained why the attack was inefficient to do any more damage than I said. 

I'm not telling you what damage you should take, as I've already explained, though the amount of 'near misses' and 'grazes' your character has incurred makes it somewhat ironic that you insist a poorly decided upon attack should do critical damage to my character's Mech. 

I've already told you what I think of your proposal. The Optics are not destroyed outright, and after looking at the reference picture the right side is more vulnerable and therefore took the brunt of the 'shock' you were talking about. Therefore the vision to the right of the Mech is damaged, not that it matters in the slightest as you've put your character into a situation where it will die by literally diving into the Mech's loving arms.

If you cannot accept the damage I've decided to incur then we have two choices, you can quit, or we can find an impartial judge who can decide what damage should logically be incurred after we explain the situation. I'd recommend Pollen, if they're not too busy.