Mocking opponents is perceived as an agenda-driven, rather than a scientific method, because it abandons objective analysis and replaces reasoned dialogue with emotional attacks and labels.

Debate by Labels: How Mockery Undermines Scientific Discourse

Mocking opponents is perceived as an agenda-driven, rather than a scientific method, because it abandons objective analysis and replaces reasoned dialogue with emotional attacks and labels. In scientific argumentation, it is important to rely on logic, evidence, and critical examination of positions instead of on mockery and biased attitudes.

For example, one excerpt from the material clearly demonstrates this problem:
"We have gained access to the greatest joy — the joy of mutual communication, specifically communication with like-minded people. But it turned out that we don't know how to listen, we don't want to think, and we are often only capable of arguing, hunting down heretics, and slapping opponents with price tags along with labels.

Besides, which opponents?

We don’t have any. Dissenters, bypassing the category of opponents, end up directly as enemies — not only 'my enemies,' but 'enemies of Truth'..." (source: link txt).

From this it follows that instead of examining arguments from a scientific perspective and striving for mutual understanding, opponents are immediately labeled, leading to a hostile environment. Such an approach turns argumentation into an "us against them" scenario where even constructive comments have no place, and the discussion is subordinated to an emotional and biased mindset.

Another quote also emphasizes the problem:
"Our Orthodox debater is a born cowboy, with a sharp eye and a terror to villains. He doesn't shoot at silhouettes, but at sounds. The door creaked — bang! The window opened — bang! A shadow flickered — bang! Enemies are everywhere, and one must shoot them dead with a single shot. Bullets are expensive. Such an uncontrolled approach to 'enemies' means that even constructive opponents get caught in the crossfire, and the discussion turns into chaos." (source: link txt).

This clearly shows that the aggressive strategy, based on mockery and hyperbolic portrayal of opponents, effectively calls for an immediate reaction without analyzing the substance of the arguments. This not only diminishes the quality of debates, turning them into emotional clashes, but also deprives the discussion of the opportunity for deep, substantiated analysis.

Thus, the method of ridicule and labeling serves as a propaganda tool, dominated by biased assumptions and emotional reactions, which fundamentally contradicts the principles of the scientific approach based on objectivity, logical analysis, and respect for opponents' arguments.

Supporting citation(s):
"We have gained access to the greatest joy — the joy of mutual communication, specifically communication with like-minded people. But it turned out that we don't know how to listen, we don't want to think, and we are often only capable of arguing, hunting down heretics, and slapping opponents with price tags along with labels.

Besides, which opponents?

We don’t have any. Dissenters, bypassing the category of opponents, end up directly as enemies — not only 'my enemies,' but 'enemies of Truth'..." (source: link txt)

"Our Orthodox debater is a born cowboy, with a sharp eye and a terror to villains. He doesn't shoot at silhouettes, but at sounds. The door creaked — bang! The window opened — bang! A shadow flickered — bang! Enemies are everywhere, and one must shoot them dead with a single shot. Bullets are expensive. Such an uncontrolled approach to 'enemies' means that even constructive opponents get caught in the crossfire, and the discussion turns into chaos." (source: link txt)