I think it is good to discuss everything, but it is bad to discuss everything all the time. So the proper exchange could go like this: “We don’t do that here.” “Can you explain to me why? Because I think it is actually a bad rule to have.” “Sure, we can schedule a debate on this topic the next Thursday. However, until then, we don’t do that here.”
And of course we are not debating the same topic every Thursday. The openness to debate everything should not be easily abused by a person who insists on doing X, and will not stop starting new meta debates about the utility of X, until their opponents get tired. At some point people need to be able to accept a clear “No”. Maybe not forever, but at least for a few months—especially when the meta debate about the utility of X is actually a thinly disguised debate about X (for example when one uses political arguments to explain why “politics is a mindkiller” is actually a bad rule for a rationalist website because it benefits the evil outgroup).
I think it is good to discuss everything, but it is bad to discuss everything all the time. So the proper exchange could go like this: “We don’t do that here.” “Can you explain to me why? Because I think it is actually a bad rule to have.” “Sure, we can schedule a debate on this topic the next Thursday. However, until then, we don’t do that here.”
And of course we are not debating the same topic every Thursday. The openness to debate everything should not be easily abused by a person who insists on doing X, and will not stop starting new meta debates about the utility of X, until their opponents get tired. At some point people need to be able to accept a clear “No”. Maybe not forever, but at least for a few months—especially when the meta debate about the utility of X is actually a thinly disguised debate about X (for example when one uses political arguments to explain why “politics is a mindkiller” is actually a bad rule for a rationalist website because it benefits the evil outgroup).