I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?

In this Reddit post [Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/arl4jl/is_buddhism_about_cognitive_linguistics_and/egnx005/?context=3&st=js95qe3c&sh=48e53d8a) , I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it. But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently. I am reading Nagarjuna's *Middle Way* if that matters.
Related: • [intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/23639/13525) • [How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31193/13525) • [Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525)