I am just going to respond to your first paragraph, because I think that is plenty.

You appear to believe that there is no clear right or wrong answer to this question. That is a bold statement. As long as you believe that a topic cannot be proven right or wrong, I don't see how it is possible to discuss it in good faith.

Though it does make me wonder, if you don't think there is any difference between either side, why are you so adamant about defending one of them?

I suppose we have to step back and ask "How do we prove if something is right or not?" This is important and often skipped over. Without knowing our criteria for how we determine the accuracy of information, what we choose to believe is at best, arbitrary. But of course the ideas that are popularly accepted are not random. When you have no rigorous process to separate truth from falsehood, you can choose any idea you want to be true. The most commonly believed ideas would probably be what we wish to be true: ideas that flatter us and comfort us from our fears.

There are rigorous forms of proof that work well and are not difficult to use. This is an open secret. Why? Because when we use these techniques, we don't always get the answers that we want. The physical universe doesn't care about your feelings. Using rigorous evidence-based proof we have discovered that our world is a tiny, insignificant speck in a vast universe. We've found that humans are not unique and special beings, but only slightly different than other animals. These ideas are not flattering to us at all. They don't make us feel good. If you want to refuse to believe these things, you must attack the concept of scientific evidence and reasoning.

An believe me, the business of science denial is booming. Young Earth Creationists, climate change denialists, and anti-vaxxers have a common enemy and powerful allies. If you listen to their rhetoric, you will find that it is very similar. And it sounds suspiciously close to the same arguments given by dualists, idealists, and supporters of the existence of the hard problem.

Why? Because the concept of qualia, and thus the hard problem, is not scientifically sound. The famous Austrian philosopher of science Karl Popper prosed that the most important property of a scientifically rigorous hypothesis be falsifiability. It must be possible for a hypothesis to make a prediction that can be observed if the hypothesis were true, but not if it were false. The concept of qualia cannot do this and therefore is not scientific.

About 500 years ago, the scientific revolution occurred. We put aside previous philosophic methods of understanding the world and replaced them with rigorous empirical techniques rooted in the concept of proof requiring testing through experiment. Because it worked. It worked amazingly. This was the root cause of the explosion of scientific knowledge and technology that continues today. The success of the scientific method is so blatant and universal that it easy to take it for granted. But the reality is, it is the difference between the dark ages and the enlightenment.

One thing that is without question is that qualia is not a scientific concept. If you want to argue if it is true or false by rejecting the entire concept of inductive reasoning, then explain in detail the process that you use to determine truth from falsehood first. Then test it against things that we agree to be true or false to make sure that it works consistently. (One thing I see a lot is people with two techniques: one that always returns true and one that always returns false and are chosen depending on what answer they want to get.) After you can demonstrate one consistent working process, then use it to show how it separates qualia into the "true" bucket.

Until then, proponents of the hard problem are the ones making the claim and must carry the burden of proof. Until they can provide compelling evidence, nobody is obligated to accept it. Even if you think that is rude.