My example was about the accuracy of a statement, it seems the conversation should more often be about accuracy instead of deflection. Or if the accuracy was un

My example was about the accuracy of a statement, it seems the conversation should more often be about accuracy instead of deflection. Or if the accuracy was undermined by indoctrination then the conversation should be about why its not accurate and why that would be clouded by indoctrination. And even in your Scientology analogy, I think there are limited similarities because you are talking about scientology often to scientologists? Do you get into those kind of conversations? If you're not getting into those kind of conversations than thats just an ad hominem attack which is a very poor form of argument and also meets one of the Oxford definitions of ignorant ( informal - discourteous or rude; west indies - angry or quick-tempered.) These are traits to avoid, pejoratives.