I think that response is moving the goalpost.
I noted that it's common throughout the world that hotels often require passport details. Your response to that is to change the issue in question to the consequences of non-compliance and away from what you initially presented as the problem ("you must register your passport or state ID").
Is your goal to argue? I don't get it.
His goal is to point out that you said "in China they tell you you need to register at hotels", and when he answered that that's the case in the US and other countries too, you expanded your question to "Does the police show up if you don’t register in Other countries they do in China".
That's normally called "moving the goalposts".
Now you're implying that they have some further motive, or just "want to agree".
Well, they wanted to point a flaw in your original argument (that implied it's somehow unique to China to have you register at hotels). Are they allowed to?