"They are obviously either dumb or malicious. It is not possible for reasonable people to have all the facts and still disagree with me." "Whenever someone misrepresents me or my arguments, I must contest their arguments until they back down. Failing to do so would be the same as agreeing that they are correct. Because of the stress these continued arguments cause me, I see these misrepresentations as an active attack on me and my sense of self, and will respond as such." False dichotomy, all-or-nothing fallacy. "Either my pain matters, or other people's pain matters. If you prioritize their pain, you don't care about me at all and you think I'm the worst person ever." Note how especially in a close relationship, like a parent-child or romantic relationship, this would bait a sympathetic "no, you're important to me, I love you" responses, and probably shut down the argument. This is less likely here because there is not the same context of emotional attachment, but the pattern is similar. "You need to give equal time to both sides of the argument. Ignoring my side is unacceptable, no matter what my side is. If you ignore my side completely, you're saying that I don't matter as a person." I am positive that there are browser extensions to handle that. Or possibly, like, don't repeatedly request exhaustive debugging if that's not actually what you want. Exhaustive debugging equals longform essays.