The lack of structure, referee, or binding adjudication in internet debates permits the cute, glib, and scatter-shot to claim victory when an objective observer would conclude they’ve lost. They dance back to their echo-chambers, high-fiving righteously and huffing contemptuously at us troglodites.

In their world-view, someone who calmly and relentlessly marshals factual arguments must be a “bully.” In my world-view, he’s a champion.

The charge that Whelan unfairly singled out Greenhouse is a red herring. It does not address the specific detailed criticisms Whelan has made. It is a distraction, and it has worked - Whelan ends up defending something that is irrelevant. Even if he has singled her out, is what he said true?

Calling Whelan a bully and a hatchet man is an ad hominem attack. I bet he is fat too, and that would be no more relevant to the argument. Name calling is a great distraction. Now you are thinking about fat people, not conflicts of interest.

Finally, they use straw men. They put words in his mouth and attack them - he trashed her professional reputation, he slimed her. Once again, we waste text trying to say that he didn’t say what they said he said - an uphill battle. And the emotion-laden statements have already done their distracting work.

The fallacies come thick and fast when the real argument sticks. Unfortunately, the fallacies work. People are not trained to react reasonably, they are trained to react emotionally.