>Where does that lead the conversation?

It's not about leading the conversation some place. He's under no obligation to lead the conversation to a place you want it to go. If someone says something different, I don't dismiss the statement. I follow up with a question. You didn't. YOu simply made a broad statement dismissing all queries saying "X is bad" as invalid and you think it's up to the person stating something to explain. No. If you want an explanation you ask for it. But the statement by itself isn't invalid.

However you completely dismissing the negative claim was invalid in my opinion.

>But if the purpose is to discuss criminality,

Obviously this is an example not a segway into criminal law. I am showing an example of a statement that is true independent of explanation. True statements are not to be ignored even when they lack explanations. That is the point.

>"The plane is about to crash, please pull up" is an expression of fact, not an opinion, and not even something that warrants or is said in a discussion so I don't think the comparison makes sense

You can't automatically say something is a fact. It's very possible things like this are an expression of opinion. The copilot observes sensor readings, he thinks we're about to crash. The pilot observes sensor readings he see's no such indication of an impending crash. This is a realistic possibility. The ounter to this is also true. You may assume GraphQL being bad is an opinion, but it's possible that it is a fact.

Let me elaborate on that. What if the person who hates GraphQL is actually expressing a universal fact? But like the pilot you have a differing opinion because you "misread" the sensor readings. Instead of taking the cautionary approach of pulling up and subsequently listening to the copilots reasoning you dismiss a statement because it has no explanation.

The point of this example is to show you a very obvious scenario where it's highly unwise to dismiss a possibly True statement simply because it lacked an explanation.
That is my point. You are dismissing a statement that has the possibility of being factually true. And you are saying you don't care whether or not it's true or not if the statement has not auto generated explanation you will dismiss it instead of inquiring further.

>I'm not going to acknowledge the last paragraph because I'm presuming good faith from you, and I'd rather not turn this discussion into speculation about other comments in this thread or why you're here.

fine. The point of me bringing it up is to not make this seem like a personal attack. But to frame my reply as a universal problem among all proponents of GraphQL that are responding in this thread. Basically i'm just reading people Gushing about how great GraphQL is and not exactly addressing why it's also despised by many on HN.

>That said, you're definitely right that I'm biased towards GraphQL, but I think we're having different discussions if you think we're discussing GraphQL's merits.

We aren't, not explicitly. I'm a neutral party with no opinion either way, I'm here to find a side to join. However reading your post and seeing that you're a proponent of GraphQL I'm criticizing your reasoning as unconvincing. Basically, Someone said GraphQL was bad, and your reasoning was all statements of the query "X is bad" should be dismissed.

I responded to explain to you why I didn't find your reasoning valid. That's all.