I think the question is, does such an argument qualify as communication at all? There are many (sadly often rather abstruse) theorizations of communication in t

I think the question is, does such an argument qualify as communication at all? There are many (sadly often rather abstruse) theorizations of communication in the cultural context out there, often bound up with the question of alterity (Levinas, Todorov, et al), but I think it's fair enough to say that many share the idea that true communication is dialogue aimed at advancing mutual understanding, or at persuading, or at increasing collective knowledge. But, if one participant actually has no interest in any of these ends, such "communication" has (potentially significant) opportunity cost -- there are many genuine communications that might occur but that do not because the good-faith participant is distracted from engaging with other good-faith actors by the bad-faith interrogator. (For example, rather than have serious conversations about how to manage and remedy climate change, scientists are distracted by conversations about whether or not it is a real phenomenon.) Bottom-line, time is a finite resource, as are the psychological energies of experts. Now obviously, deciding when someone engaged in an argument is acting in bad faith is difficult. But the naive position that it's always good to argue it out is not practically sustainable.