That`s true, my example was more on the line of people attempting an assertion fallacy (repeating a point until the other agrees). I agree with you that explaining a point in a different way is way more effective and is better to start that way instead of quickly assuming the worst on the other person.
My point is that the reaction i mentioned earlier is based on the intention i perceived. Also, if i am interrupting without contributing, i would expect to be called out for it. I agree that a conversation`s rythm doesnt always work "in turns", but sometimes, when a conversation's rythm accelerates, there needs to be an order. You can see that in many debates from contemporary politicians, where the moderator of saids debates has the tedious task of keeping the debate in order, to stop them from interrupting each other and to respect each turn to speak because otherwise they would not shut up.
Of course some debaters are the exception, but said exception is still an unusual thing.
And i agree that if the conversation stays civiliced, there is no necesity to call out other for interrupting and there would be no concerns over a debate devolving into a childish ego war.
for clarification: i consider interrumpting to ask for clarification a valid reason to interrupt.