When someone brings in a wall of links into an argument, especially an intensely polarizing argument like the nationalistic kind, it never has the desired effect of grounding the discussion in facts. It comes across as a barrage and makes the other side dig in deeper and get more defensive. Hence, more flamewar.

I don't mean to impugn your research or the time you spent on your comment. But unfortunately that style of comment pattern-matches to the "list of pre-existing talking points brought in to further pre-existing agenda" genre, simply because the latter is so much more common in internet arguments of this nature. That's why I used the word "boilerplate", which obviously didn't apply to this case.

I would agree that replying to others with out of context links pushing a counter-narrative is an unhealthy way to engage others.

Like most others in polarizing discussions I sometimes fall into the trap of misinterpreting what the other say and therefore critiquing what I thought they said where more clarification would be good. Do you think that happened here?

I try to avoid the previously trap, and recognize it. With regards to providing informational links in this particular instance I don’t know how we can make progress across divides without providing links to why we have a different viewpoints, and engage in the other persons arguments and supporting evidence.

If you have any thoughts on how the inconsistencies between the parents claims and what seem to be the well published situation on the ground could be highlighted in a better way that would be helpful. Right now I am reading “how to have impossible conversations” by Bogossian and in general studying why my viewpoint opponents think what they think. Benjamin Boynces series on evergreen is incredibly interesting. Hopefully I’ll learn something good.