see, for most rational people, these kinds of arguments/conversations/whatever have two terminal states - you either give another thought or some unheard piece of evidence, or you accept (partially or completely) that you were wrong on some level.
now this is the internet and the blockland forums, so most arguments here end in limbo in the first case. but even then, that's still respectable since the person hasn't had all their ideas addressed and still has a reason to think what they do.
then there's the other option where you double-down and stick to your guns even though you have literally nothing left to say. everything has been addressed, but you won't budge because the idea of not being wrong isn't 'exciting enough' or because you're so emotionally invested in some inconsequential portion of your ideology that you're principally opposed to changing it.
this is, for instance, what a third grader does when the rest of the class won't believe his story about seeing bigfoot on the scout camping trip. it's a hallmark of an actually-developmentally-immature brain. primary school teachers learn how to defuse these kinds of scenarios, and it's embarrassing that I see this so much with fully-grown adults.
Poll