> "I don't see why this is wrong, and I'm frustrated that nobody will debate me about this issue from where I stand, so I'll get angrier and angrier until I get someone's attention."

This is a very succinct and insightful way of putting it. It's fine to refuse to engage with people who are refusing to engage with you in good faith (i.e. they won't respond to the arguments you're making with anything but a repetition of their own arguments.) However, assuming bad faith of everyone who has a different opinion than you, even an obviously bad opinion, just hardens their belief in that opinion. It also makes you the one who is refusing to engage (in good faith or bad.)

People know from their daily lives that when people refuse to engage, it's either because they're afraid their answer will anger you, or because they're afraid that they won't be able to defend it. When you refuse to engage with a bleach-drinker, and you're clearly not worried about angering them, they reasonably assume that you can't confidently tell them why they shouldn't drink bleach.