I have noticed that the "You're not listening" excuse is used frequently by people on all sides of debate here at GT when someone doesn't change their mind on a point of view after all persuading points in their arsenal have been used.
That is an invalid argument. It assumes that you think that the only way someone could possibly disagree with you is if they simply weren't listening, that they just don't understand your point of view, but if they listened to you they certainly would because their is no way you could be wrong. What if the reason they disagree with you is because you don't have a compelling argument to support your position? Maybe after everything you can show them they still are not persuaded and have valid points against your position? Maybe they embraced and argued for your position at one point and were persuaded against it because they honestly found problems with it they couldn't honestly reconcile? Can you reconcile those same problems with a compelling conclusive case, or not?
I think it is best to give others the benefit of the doubt that they do in fact understand your position and have found compelling reasons not to embrace it. The you're not listening excuse doesn't cut it. There is no reason for anyone to even be here if they aren't reading posts and considering the statements made in them. So we should give others the benefit of the doubt that they are in fact listening and ask them specifically why they reject a point we would think is irrefutable, instead of calling them uneducated or think headed or tell them they are simply not listening.