I love it when rhetorical analysis makes its way onto these threads.
Speaking of: if anyone listened to the xmas meateater podcast when Matt and Steve debated, it was infuriating from a rhetoric perspective: Matt, the scientist, would make an argument by placing his conclusions first and then defending them, whereas Steve, the liberal arts guy, would argue his points to reach a conclusion. They spoke a different language and because they think and argue differently, it made for an exercise in frustration from a listener standpoint.
This argument between Matt and Cam, social media call-outs and name calling, posturing and peacocking, is really two sides of the same coin. At least they are speaking the same language of lunacy, as
@Nameless Range aptly described it, racing to the bottom.
It's a different kind of frustration, makes everyone involved look silly, doesn't really move the needle, and makes all hunters, from the outside looking in, look bad.
I prefer to argue here, in courtrooms, op-eds, in person, or in legislative and commission chambers. Though they can be less logical and just as full of bologna, at least, sometimes, there are rules.