A striking characteristic of moral judgments is that people commonly assign value to particular actions, irrespective of what consequences the actions bring about

From Actions Versus Consequences in Political Arguments: Insights from Moral Psychology by Timothy J. Ryan. From the Abstract:

A striking characteristic of moral judgments is that people commonly assign value to particular actions, irrespective of what consequences the actions bring about. This phenomenon might be important to understanding political judgments, where people frequently purport to stand on principle, even when doing some comes at a substantial cost. Here, I draw on work in psychology that might help identify which citizens are insensitive to consequences in the context of political argumentation. I find that a particular facet of attitude intensity (moral conviction) identifies citizens who think about political issues in absolutist terms (Studies 1-2), and who dismiss damaging information about policy consequences (Studies 3-4). These results develop understanding of what attributes make different political arguments compelling to different people, and illustrate the utility of attitude intensity measures as a way to account for the atomized and disorganized nature of political opinions.

People who base their arguments on moral conviction are indeed difficult to talk with. By questioning their facts, you are inherently questioning their moral beliefs.

This goes to an underlying issue. Ideally and as a default you need to be prepared to discuss an argument with anyone and you should be prepared to do so. However, time is limited and there are people who are profoundly uninformed, ill-informed or misinformed. It requires a great deal of time, effort and goodwill simply to get on the same song sheet. Under some circumstances that investment in time, goodwill, and effort is fully warranted.

In many cases it is sunk cost and best avoided.

Similarly, there are people who are completely unamenable to argument because their position is not determined by their knowledge of facts, logic and reason. Their position is determined based on a moral worldview. Sometimes those position can be changed with logic, reason and facts. Usually they cannot.

If you have scarce time then it is valuable to assess your interlocutor. Are they ready to speak right away from an informed position? Or are they materially deficient in facts, logic or reason or are they emotionally committed to their position regardless. You can save yourself much time and anguish by being able to determine those things in advance.