You're mistaken. The health (or lack of health) of a dialogue is completely orthogonal to agreement (I would have thought this was obvious, but I guess not). I could agree with someone, but their discourse could be completely toxic (e.g., I can love Linux but nevertheless it would be toxic if someone were just shouting "I LOVE LINUX ITS THE BEST LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU!"). I could (and frequently do) also find myself civily disagreeing with someone, but understanding their arguments (and my own) better as a result--this is an example of healthy dialogue. In this particular case, I happen to disagree with conspiratorialists and also object to their discourse, but again, those are two distinct concerns.