>When I talk with people about this, there are some people like yourself just don't get what the big fuss is. For me, I see the challenge as being trying to direct their eyes (metaphorically) to see for the first time that there's something that's a key part of the world that they'd previously missed, that has no explanation on the materialist view.
For those of us who have also gone the naive materialism > some kind of non-materialism route, but then took another step into well-supported materialism or unavoidable rejection of all non-materialism, this is a tedious way of arguing. You run the risk of dismissing some good arguments for materialism without really considering them, because you think you can just reply "but you haven't really explained the blue-ness of blue" to everything, expecting that people will agree with you once they finally really consider the elusive blueness of blue. But the best arguments for materialism aren't of the type "the mind is material and here's how", but more like "even if we don't know how the mind is material, it must be so for xyz reason", i.e. non-constructive proofs.
One person's modus ponens is another person's modus tollens. I move from the certainty that there is something here that needs explaining ('blueness') that cannot be here if materialism is true, to the conclusion that materialism is false. You perhaps move from the certainty that materialism is true (or some other premise) to the conclusion that this thing ('blueness') doesn't exist or must have an explanation.
In a good faith discussion, there are at least two parties, each trying to convince the other that they are wrong. Since the discussion is in good faith, each should also be open to the possibility they've missed something they hadn't considered before (perhaps some information they lacked, or a connection between ideas that they'd previously missed).
Thus far I've been trying to argue against materialism. When it comes instead to the topic of you convincing me that materialism is true, I find it hard to see any possible path for that to happen without first identifying this thing ('blueness'), and then either showing me where it is in the materialist picture, or explaining it away. As an idealist, when it comes to talk about the physical world, I explain it away -- I deny that there is any genuine mind-independent physical world. Part of that 'explaining away' includes an explanation of our experiences as of a physical world, and an explanation for why our talk about physical things still makes sense.
For my part, without exaggeration, it seems to me as if physicalism talks about everything except the largest and most important thing the room. And so I think that I can't really be blamed for retorting "you haven't really explained the blue-ness of blue" if you haven't. I need to be able to see how materialism can make sense of it if I'm to consider changing my view. Without it, I just can't see a bridge from where I am to there.
For those of us who have also gone the naive materialism > some kind of non-materialism route, but then took another step into well-supported materialism or unavoidable rejection of all non-materialism, this is a tedious way of arguing. You run the risk of dismissing some good arguments for materialism without really considering them, because you think you can just reply "but you haven't really explained the blue-ness of blue" to everything, expecting that people will agree with you once they finally really consider the elusive blueness of blue. But the best arguments for materialism aren't of the type "the mind is material and here's how", but more like "even if we don't know how the mind is material, it must be so for xyz reason", i.e. non-constructive proofs.