The whole IC conversation is pretty much real life summed up:

People all making valid points that don't actually disagree with anybody else's points and yet for some reason thinking that their point makes everybody else's invalid, and repeating that point without addressing anybody else's points and so basically talking to a brick wall and hoping for consensus

Half the party = The dragon is probably related to the threat and could well attack us while we're dealing with said threat, in which we wouldn't be prepared and we'd die

Other half of the party = The dragon isn't time sensitive, why deal with it now?

Half of the party = Because the dragon is probably related to the threat and could well attack us while we're dealing with said threat, in which we wouldn't be prepared and we'd die

Other half of the party = But shouldn't we deal with the threat first?

Half the party = Well the dragon is probably allied with the threat

Other half of the party = Why don't we go deal with the threat, the dragon isn't time sensitive

Half of the party = We could get attacked by the dragon while dealing with the threat, and that would be bad

Other half of the party = Why are we discussing this dragon? It isn't our quest, we can deal with the dragon afterwards

Half of the party = The dragon is probably going to attack us on the way, we'd rather get the jump on it first or have a back-up plan

Other half of the party = We have more important things to deal with than the dragon, like the threat, we'll deal with the dragon later


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!


Admittedly I have boiled down the argument somewhat, but this is crazy