> If we're moving past pure reason into useful tools and tricks to diminish people's standing...
Without getting into the "cancel culture" aspect (which seems like a red herring), in order to even get to a point where "pure reason" comes into play, you have to force your adversary to engage on that level.
For instance, a powerful politician isn't going to take the risk of engaging in any argument unless there is something that makes ignoring it costly. If anything, they'll especially ignore a well-reasoned argument against them if they can get away with it. They're not going to get into a debate with someone because their points seem interesting or insightful; they're going to avoid engaging altogether. It's not worth the risk.
Insults are one of the tools that can create enough negative publicity to diminish their standing, and to force them to engage, in order to avoid further diminution.
Without getting into the "cancel culture" aspect (which seems like a red herring), in order to even get to a point where "pure reason" comes into play, you have to force your adversary to engage on that level.
For instance, a powerful politician isn't going to take the risk of engaging in any argument unless there is something that makes ignoring it costly. If anything, they'll especially ignore a well-reasoned argument against them if they can get away with it. They're not going to get into a debate with someone because their points seem interesting or insightful; they're going to avoid engaging altogether. It's not worth the risk.
Insults are one of the tools that can create enough negative publicity to diminish their standing, and to force them to engage, in order to avoid further diminution.