Sorry, but broad generalizations about a wide range of separate and unrelated magic do not somehow merge into highly specific problems from Dresden in if he does a DH on DR. You can certainly speculate that they might causes problems based on experience with other magic, but asserting that it will happen in some specific manner is not a valid statement.
Yes it does, because that's how evidence-based logic works.
From the sound of it, the only thing you'll accept as evidence is an instance of this specific thing happening, which is faulty at best.
It's like if we were talking about long falls. We're all saying, "Well, I fell 10 feet and I broke my ankle. A guy I know fell 20 feet and broke both legs. Therefore, a fall of 100 feet will do serious damage to you."
Meanwhile, you're saying, "No, you can't take those general things and apply them to the specific problem. You don't know someone who fell from 100 feet specifically, I can argue that you'll be perfectly fine after falling 100 feet."
Let's break it down again: Absorbing power from something else gives you traits of that something else. This is observed several times, across different methods, so we can logically conclude it is just something that happens when you absorb power
no matter how you absorb it.
The more powerful the thing you absorb is, the more it will affect you. That's just plain logic.
The Darkhallow is absorbing power en masse.
Ergo, absorbing obscenely powerful things en masse through the Darkhallow is going to affect someone.
Not good enough is perfectly fine if what you are saying is not good enough. Everything you are saying simply implies the possibility of a problem. Not its certainty. To state a certainty you need specifics.
I am very much arguing in good faith. I am not trolling you. You cant just provide vague generalities and act as if they are cosmic proof of your highly specific assertions.
Tautologies aren't going to get you anywhere. We're taking the well-established rules of the setting and applying them to the problem. Not "vague generalities." We're providing specific instances of people absorbing power and how it affects them, and you're ignoring the explicit, logical links.
You're the one proposing an idea that runs contrary to what we've observed and been told about the setting by several sources, author included. We shouldn't have to sit here trying to prove that gravity is a thing just because you want to argue that flapping your arms will let you fly.