On what basis do you assert you were "reasoned out" of that position?

I'll admit it's rather shaky and I'd be saying the same thing if I'd merely been brainwashed. It doesn't feel like it was precipitated by anything other than legitimate moral argument, though. If I can be brainwashed out of my "terminal values" so easily, and it really doesn't feel like something to resist, then I'd like a sturdier basis on which to base my moral reasoning.

For example, what about your change of mind causes you to reject a conversation metaphor?

What is a conversation metaphor? I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at.

The other way you might respond is that you have realized that you still value freedom, but have recently realized it is not a terminal value. But that makes the example less useful in figuring out how actual terminal values work.

I still value freedom in what feels like a fundamental way, I just also value hierarchy and social order now. What is gone is the extreme feeling of ickyness attached to authority, and the feeling of sacredness attached to freedom, and the belief that these things were terminal values.

The point is that things I'm likely to identify as "terminal values", especially in the contexts of disagreements, are simply not that fundamental, and are much closer to derived surface heuristics or even tribal affiliation signals.

I feel like I'm not properly responding to your comment though.