You make it hard for me to come to common terms with you. I prefer this kind of method of indeed coming to an - at least temporarily - agreement. Of course, we need not to agree. But it makes a discussion alive from my point of view, to give a question and an answer, in the face of risking to have it not all laid out.
More of a ping pong.
Laying it all out pushes me to now read everything you laid out. Which prevents me to hear if I have understood you correctly in the former comment. If you provide me with a wall of text, you leave it to me to extract the very essence of what I have understood so far. Now, I need to have a response if what I had essentially heard from you, is understood by me in principle. I find this to be good enough.
Let us balance it more out, shall we?
So, which of what all what you have said, is the most important statement you want to bring on?
I intend to speak truth. I therefore need to differentiate between what I can have confidence in because I have tested it and not been able to disprove it, and my assumptions, biases, and and things I am wrong about. That last is difficult, because if I know I'm wrong I change my mind, so this then impels me to moderate my statements and claims, to be sure what I say remains factually correct even if I'm wrong, because I surely am wrong. I try to state things so that I am not asserting knowledge or certainty I cannot have.
I vastly prefer to be vague and uncertain than to lie or mislead. This clearly makes me unsuitable as a cult leader or politician, and I have to accept my limitations in that wise.