From my perspective, a better example than any of your three is bordelais7, who I think was trying to engage me to a degree. For some reason, he decided I was not deserving of the benefit of the doubt when I made an over-generalization (or, it was something else, he didn't say what).
Not one single post of heyhey's dealt with the argument. His entire focus was on how I presented myself. As soon as I said I was done talking about that with him, he was done, period. Supposedly, he doesn't even disagree with me (from what he said, anyhow).
GameFace and I have had direct conversations. If he tells me I just play word games, I'll take that point seriously. An example would be helpful.
After all this time, you can't even bother to pretend you understand what I'm saying. How can you engage in an argument whose premise you can't/won't state? Your attempt at counter-argument fails, time and again, because it doesn't address the argument at all. You seem to think that if there is no conscious bias, there is no bias. If you offered any reason to believe that, it would be a counter-argument. However, you just make broad proclamations, false accusations, and empty assertions. It's like dealing with John Cleese in the argument sketch.