I should probably give up on political debates online. It seems like the old saying applies: bad money drives out good.
Back in the day when states didn't claim a monopoly on money, various institutions issued currency, and money was actually made of precious metals, the value of money depended on the value of the metals in the actual piece of money. However, if you could trust a particular type of money to have a consistent purity, then that money had a higher value than money which did not have a consistent purity.
It's like the lemons problem: when you buy a used car, you won't pay the full value of a car that age because it may be a lemon. Instead, you'll pay the value of a good car times the probability that such a car will be good. Google Lemons Problem if my explanation doesn't suffice.
Back to the subject of bad money driving out good. Naturally, people wanted to save some money for contingencies, so they would want to save the best quality money on the premise that having built up a high level of trust it would retain its value. The less-trustworthy money would get spent. Hence, the money that changed hands most often, the money that was actually present in the marketplace, was the less-trustworthy money. Bad money drives out good.
Now, finally, back to the subject of political debates online. People talk a lot of smack, especially when they don't care about the average quality of their comments. If they don't care about honesty or engaging the subject, then they can really go all out. Comments in bad faith drive out good.
ETA: I find it hard to stop, though. Dagnabbit.