I’m not sure I appreciate this type of argument. Is the credibility of a movement actually undermined if the progress currently asked for isn’t the final object

I’m not sure I appreciate this type of argument. Is the credibility of a movement actually undermined if the progress currently asked for isn’t the final objective? Is moving in the direction of what I want not an action you could take seriously if I don’t reach my destination? There might be valid points against this, but preventing any partial solution because it isn’t the ultimate solution seems to be more of a derailing tactic (where the conversation is instead devolved into trying to examine what the ideal solution would be in a hypothetical we wouldn’t be able to achieve) than an actual argument.