What bothers me is that masklinn is saying statements that sort of imply there should be a debate, but are not actually advancing the conversation at all. They are neither stating a position nor introducing evidence toward a possible position.

Maybe it helps if I go through the conversation:

Neodypsis says we shouldn't use medicinal-value fungicides on crops. A clear position, based on obvious evidence.

Masklinn replies saying that fungi kill a lot of crops. Okay, well taken literally that's already a part of the comment they reply to. Is the implication that we need medicinal-value fungicides for crops? So I ask if that's what they're saying.

Their reply back... refuses to answer. They just say there's "significant overlap", but "significant overlap" is almost nothing in terms of answering that question. There could be tons and tons of usable crop fungicides outside the overlap. Or none. So it's a fact that's useless by itself but deniably implies a position.

And unless I'm going crazy they initially posted with a real position, but immediately edited it out.

So what I see is someone who could contribute to the debate, almost did for a brief flash, but would rather make posts that have no opinion and no relevant facts. Noise instead of signal.

I don't think they're contrarian, I think those posts are some kind of terrible opposite of being contrarian. And I'm not trying to be contrarian, I just want them to clarify. As for fungicides I have no idea, I need more evidence...

I think it's credible to say that they assumed that the reader would understand that if there were only a few antifungals that could be used on crops, they would start working very poorly in short order. That's not exceptional, because we've seen it happen before with other compounds we spray on crops.

Seen through this lens, I don't necessarily follow with your thinking - but I can try now! Thank you for explaining it so well.