I am reflecting your approach back to you. And you don't like it. That ought to give you an idea of how other people may experience your approach.
It appears that your primary intention is that things be done your way, and not that people learn what you have to teach them.
The simple fact of the matter - and you can now personally attest to it - is that teaching people in a way that hurts their feelings, challenges their worldview usually leads to people _not_ learning whatever it is that the teacher wishes to teach them.
In order for people to learn, to even just acknowledge a flaw in their reasoning, it is necessary that they be in a mental state where they are able and willing to do so. For the most part, this means they must feel safe and comfortable enough.
Many people, including theists for their evangelizing, use a direct, confrontational approach. Yet such an approach has a poor track record - while it indeed forces people to comply, it also makes them afraid and unwilling, and more likely to give up.
As an alternative, an approach like
motivational interviewing is more effective, more realistic, in that it is less threatening and focuses on what the other person is currently capable of, not what they should be capable of. Of course, it also requires more effort and goodwill on the part of the counselor. But anyone who truly wishes that other people would change in a particular way, is willing to invest that.
I have so far given you the credit that you know better, that your approach is superior. This is why I used your apporach. Even if to me, it seemed mostly unproductive. But I've nevertheless given you the credit. You and many other theists.
But, as you can see, it's an approach that just doesn't produce the results you desire - ie., that other people would change. It certainly satisfies your desire that things be done your way, but beyond that, it's not productive.