"You were emotionally loud at me about how much you think it's not okay to destroy the multiverse. As I understand Golarion rules for political debate, I'm supposed to be loud back at you about people in Hell who are too broken now, in too much pain, for them to pray to me, or anyone, for rescue, about infants who wake up in the Boneyard and cry for their parents and nobody comes for them until some feral older toddler bites off their hand and then they heal because that's how the Boneyard works, and they grow up like that too and go to the Abyss and then cease to exist and, I hope, end up somewhere with good psychiatric rehabilitation."
"If I don't come with a good, persuasive, loud emotional response like that, then, as I understand the rules for Golarion discourse, I've lost the argument. Possibly the person who made an angry argument and didn't get an angry counterargument feels that they've definitely won the moral victory, there, even if the other person is unreasonably not changing course despite having lost so badly."
"I want you to imagine that you are the villain in control of everything, and that I am the protagonist who has to steer reality only by persuading you. Imagine that I, the protagonist, come in here being very emotionally loud at you about how dare you not destroy the multiverse when there's somebody on fire in Avernus right now and it's maybe not too late to send them on to their next reality while there's still something left, if we work fast enough."
"Imagine that you don't say back anything at high voice volume and emotionally loud, about the importance of people getting to live, back at me. You just state that the importance of people getting to continue existing is the deciding factor according to your own utilityfunction."
"What are you feeling when you decline to respond to my emotional loudness with more emotional loudness of your own?"