As several Argumentation Ethics Advocates (abbreviated AEAs) have noted, Argumentation Ethics Critics (abbreviated "critics") are often not keen to respond. Why is this?
If one were to critique or question Argumentation Ethics, typical response from AEAs tend to rival the length of essays, if not novels, typically laden with links, references, resources, nuanced definitions and countless other materials. AEAs often demand one research and understand A.E. in detail including their arguments, premises, logic, and nuanced definitions in detail. Continuing the discussions with AEAs tends to result in similar responses, as "novel length" gives way to volumes. The farther one continues, the deeper the rabbit hole goes. Often enough, when a dissenter leaves short responses or wishes to move on, some AE-advocates are known to aggressively pursue a more comprehensive response, or passive-aggressive tactics like claiming the dissenter conceded.
In the sense that "when all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," many AEAs are notorious for using A.E. to bludgeon dissent, in a manner best summarized as "A.E. is objectively right, therefore your opinion doesn't matter." AEAs often ignore original reasoning, in favor of demands that dissenters engage entirely on the terms of A.E.-premises, A.E.-definitions, and A.E.-argumentation structures. This quickly gives way to accusations of ignorance, suggesting one must do more reading or is simply unable to understand AE. Failing that, AEAs notoriously levy passive aggressive accusations of "performative contradictions" and "immorality," finding it incomprehensible that a person may not wish to engage in (AE's version of) argumentation.
Lastly, there are the "AE-zealots," a very specific subset (not all) of AEAs who are known to pursue "heretics" in highly aggressive ways. As a result of even passing critiques, several critics have been subjected to harassment tactics by these zealots, including stalking, verbal attacks, personal attacks, reputation attacks, antagonizing and condescending remarks, persistent loud demands for responses, intentional misinterpretation, trolling, and otherwise various other harassment tactics.
JamesCarlin doesn't respond because he is intellectually dishonest, weak, whines when he loses, concedes I'm right, and unable to respond. - paraphrased zealot
Gather around Brethren, for we shall read from the Codex of Hoppe, chapter 5, section 3.
Beware the fool and deceiver, who knows the word of god but does not receive it. The fool is lazy and unaware, his distaste for education and correction shal leave him poor and undesirable. The deceiver's mouth poisons the minds of the weak, leading them astray from the path of our true savior. Woe be to those who have heard the word of god, and yet do not accept it in their hearts. Amen!
The only reason this critic has ever cared about A.E. is due to its use to bludgeon dissenters in an arrogant way. Beyond that, A.E. is seen as incredibly boring, mind-numbing, eye-bleeding, and useless - and something that belonging in the massive echo-chambers of philosophical topics of little significance, except to those who advocate it.
My analysis of A.E. is that it is illogical in the sense "rocks are sad" and no amounts of "proofs" can make it so. The burden of proof is on the one making an assertion, and as such, disproving A.E.-theory is not the responsibility of critics. Disproving A.E. does nothing for this author, it's not 'my' pet project, and the investment required to debunk A.E. on AEAs terms would be incredibly irresponsible.
Several real-life priorities are vastly more pleasurable and beneficial, perhaps followed by several topics I find vastly more important and interesting, with A.E. near the bottom of the priority list. Subjectively, A.E. discussions are highly irresponsible acts because they take away from much higher priorities. The few A.E. articles, comments, and critiques that are written are dwarfed by the number of A.E. discussions actively avoided.
While this author cannot speak for all A.E. critics and dissenters, the above is why this AE critic avoids Argumentation Ethics like the plague.