Your paraphrase is OK. You kept it more simple and basic than with the previous one, and that worked fine.
I had a comment on Popper’s story. It sounds like he had access to people who were willing to discuss repeatedly, but whose minds were difficult to change. So he could keep trying different arguments and questions, and get responses, but he wasn’t persuading them, and frameworks were a relevant factor.
I think I have some experience with what Popper is talking about, but my recent experience is different than that. I make a lot more meta arguments (including ones that reframe debate more cooperatively as joint truth seeking) which are harder to dismiss with the tactics Popper was running into. I think one of the results is that fewer people want to discuss. When their regular tactics don’t work well, a common reaction is to avoid discussion. I suspect they only were open to debate when they felt reasonably confident about not losing and not having to change their minds.