The important thing here are the words 'blatantly false' - they may have been blatantly false from your position and not from hers - that's because you have knowledge she doesn't have and can provide wider context that may not be obvious. If you're going to debate in good faith, then it requires good faith - that you don't necessarily infer malice without good reason. Objectivity is key. If she infers terrible things about my writing (and she does sometimes) then I'll laugh it off and see her in the next piece.

You cannot on the one hand say you won't compromise civility and then enact the digital equivalent of getting up, saying nothing and then refusing to listen to anything they ever say ever again - that might seem civil, but it isn't really. Digital caveats like the block button allow us to mask uncivil behaviours under a veneer of self-protection. I presume if you met her in real life, you wouldn't simply leave the room if she spoke to you - I don't know why the internet should be and different.

If it helps you put it in context, there is another writer on this platform who has sought my real-life identity, phoned my work place and made spurious (easily disproven) allegations to my employers because they didn't like what I had to say on certain matters. That writer still isn't blocked from reading my stuff. There is nothing less civilised than groups of people refusing to talk to each other on the grounds that the other group is an idiot - it's killing democracy and it's killing interpersonal relationships.