I understand what you're saying, I guess I just disagree on the significance. For me there is very little meaningful difference between "I think murder is wrong

I understand what you're saying, I guess I just disagree on the significance. For me there is very little meaningful difference between "I think murder is wrong because x" and "you should think murder is wrong because x". I don't see "you should" as trying to force a thought because that would be ridiculous, it's obviously impossible to forcibly change someone's thoughts. What I think is a much bigger problem is "you are a bad person because you don't believe x", which is quite common American politics and is very counterproductive. There's a big difference between "I hate your beliefs" and "I hate you because of your beliefs". Basically, I agree that confrontation is not useful, I just find it hard to believe that "you should" is enough to make reasonable people close off. At least in my experience, if you're having a polite conversation with an average person, these minor phrasing choices are not very important. Finally, as a genuine question, are "who appointed you the gatekeeper" and "maybe you should interpret this as a call to introspect" not just as if not more confrontational than whatever was in my comment? I'm not making an accusation, I had no problem with your phrasing, I just want to understand exactly what you're talking about so I can communicate better.