I have two stock responses to this sort of thing:
In the first, I would normally ask "Do you think this is an inherent issue with e-cigarettes as a fully-conceived product, or one of
batteries as a component
of that product?"
If the power cord of my refrigerator fails, that doesn't indict refrigeration. It indicts faulty power cords. I take the same care with my
vaping batteries as I do to check the power cord of a refrigerator before I buy one. I don't trash my stereo receiver and turntable because the headphones have died, nor do my faulty headphones inform us to not own sound systems.
Similarly, an exploding battery does not indict e-cigarettes, unless batteries which explode are an integral and necessary component of them.
The argument rests on isolating a disreputable part from a sound whole. I know a girl who feels distressed to have been born with four toes on one of her feet. This doesn't mean her mind, heart, soul, or the remainder of her body are somehow "broken".
My second, related argument asks if the disreputable example is also
representative of the whole. Does a particular faulty battery, and therefore particular faulty e-cigarette represent the industry?
I once lived next to a home that exploded from a gas line break. It wasn't a representative enough example of homes and gas lines in general to make me want to live in a tent eating cold canned food with my body wrapped in sweaters. My example of an exploding house reflects neither the building industry nor power companies generally.
It's the same kind of argument I use against questionable inductive leaps, or prejudices. I once lived in a city where a female black police officer was convicted for corruption. It was too insufficient an example to compel me to sexism, racism, or anarchy.