So a sufficiently compelling headline goes one step beyond intriguing your curiosity into clicking, it substitutes for the author's entire argument?
Amazing bit of self-justification you have there.
If you want to argue against what the author wrote, by all means. If you intend to argue against a straw man you have concocted out of a three word title, then you will seem a fool.
It’s an order from the top. A commandment. A clear requirement. A statement of belief for the masses to follow.
It’s an unequivocal statement, a perfectly confident directive telling you precisely what to do without the slightest equivocation.
It’s not “read this powerful headline but then please read the in depth article only to find we don’t actually mean what is said in the headline, we mean something more nuanced and subtle why did you take our headline seriously?”