Question

In quite a few places you argue that if there is a serious dispute taking place over some issue (for example, moral questions), that is evidence that at the root of the matter there stands an objective and real concept that both sides are discussing.
On the one hand, I tend to be persuaded by this argument. At the same time, it has happened more than once that very serious arguments were conducted over nonsense and absurdities, which calls into question the validity of the type of argument I mentioned above.
I would be glad to hear how you understand this argument in question (perhaps one could say that it is only a supporting argument and not a decisive one).