Debating software patents with silicon valley types is a losing battle. They're the types who would stand to profit from someones non-obvious software invention not being patentable, and so most such people are unsurprisingly against software patents. There's little nuance involved beyond that.

What is a "Silicon Valley type"?

People who see themselves as entrepreneurs/hustlers/hackers, in contrast to scientists/inventors/researchers.

Can you name any examples of "non-obvious" software "inventions" that require patent protection?

RSA is the usual example. Do you disagree with it?

Yes, I disagree. Why does/did RSA require a patent?

Require is the wrong word. The question is were we better off with or without them having a patent. Not keeping RSA a trade secret seems like a win for society.

That presupposes a lot. Who says it would have been kept a "trade secret"? And, supposing it would have been, who's to say someone else wouldn't have come along with an alternative open solution?