See, it's not "challenging your point of view" to state that they didn't like what you liked.
Depends on how it is framed. Evaluations may be offered a "mere opinions" which do not imply a burden of acceptance/rejoinder or they may be framed strongly, in which case there is such an implication.
Also, BillJ wasn't simply talking about what he liked, but was rather offering a competing interpretation. That is, what he did was make a statement about "the facts of the case" (i.e., did they or did they not have any discernible reason to be friends?).
This interpretation, of course, is implicitly connected to disrupting evaluation - See, Old Trek shares the same properties as New Trek, so you cannot criticize it for having the same properties.
Also, when BillJ announces that criticizing Kirk and Spock for being friends is the "dumbest criticism ever," would you say that is a challenge or merely an innocent opinion?
Besides this. Crucially. Besides this, there is nothing wrong with challenging another person's point of view. This is why we invented language.
It's just their opinion. I read nothing in the disagreement that sounded like an attack on your position. And it has nothing to do with "equalizing" it, it simply is saying "I didn't like this, but I liked this." You don't like the movie and you've picked it apart, but no one claimed you were attacking the movie.
How do you know that I didn't like the movie? Liking a movie and criticizing a movie are two different things.
Indeed, I have attacked the film for having faults. But this is all part of reasoned discussion. Again, I can attack the faults of a film that I "like." What I object to are illicit attacks.
To have a robust discussion of the film we have to be able to freely interpret, evaluate, and describe. All of these will involve making arguments. The clash of arguments always involves attack and defense.