I can relate to both sides, but I think the logic of wanting to engage is that at least having a dialogue path is an avenue to submit contrary evidence or examp

I can relate to both sides, but I think the logic of wanting to engage is that at least having a dialogue path is an avenue to submit contrary evidence or examples for consideration. Sort of like "All X are like Y!" and then the refutation of showing "Several X are not like Y" without trying to attack the conversation participants. It takes both parties agreeing to the rules, and I'm not claiming either side always works through the dialogue in a mature or analytical fashion.