When it comes to debating, there are two types of people. One is interested in the topic and wants to know the truth about it. The other wants to win the debate at all costs by proving his moral superiority.
“Clearly I am a better person than my opponent therefore my views are valid and his aren’t.”
Sadly modern education does not give a fuck about the truth, and does not teach students to have an inquisitive mind. In fact it indoctrinates them that being “good” is more important than being honest or truthful. Political correctness is a clear manifestation of this tendency. The schools don’t care if what you’re saying is true or not, the only thing that matters is you don’t hurt the feelings of someone in an officially sanctioned victim group.
Thanks to this 90% of people on the internet can’t debate. They leave school imprinted with the thought that they are good, politically correct people, and they hold the right opinion on every subject. Those who disagree with them are not only wrong but also bad people! And since they can’t actually debate, because they lack the skills to build logical arguments, and since they are trying to defend views that are mostly false (politically correct means it’s not actually correct…) they don’t have any other choice but to attack the other person. Hence insults, shaming, ad hominems. All the other fallacies are just icings on the cake, halfhearted attempts at debating without the support of being actually right backing them up. Hence appeal to authority, to the majority, to emotions.
So, what if I like vanilla ice cream and some social justice warrior thinks vanilla is racist, sexist or whatever? His argument will look like this:
Your hatred of chocolate shows how much of a ****ist you are. My studies show that chocolate is just as good as vanilla because ekvalitee, in fact it’s better because oppression! Your studies are invalid because ****ism. You are morally inferior because you fail to understand that political correctness. I deeply care about designated victim group so I’m a good guy, and if you oppose a good guy you must be a bad guy. If you care about acceptable targets of hate you are taking their side against designated victim groups which makes you even more evil. You can’t be right, therefore it is absolutely unnecessary to address (or even read) your points or to refute your arguments. Everything you say is automatically invalid because I am morally superior.
Most people on the internet follow this pattern and couldn’t argue logically or factually to save their lives.