I'll employ my inner Cloud here and ask why I should give the benefit of the doubt to someone who sees it as fair game to debate a demographic's basic humanity, which is what most "targeted rebuttals" tend to be against. A lot of the right-wing people who get dunked on until they go quiet tend to start getting dunked on after they post something particularly unsavory. That they then posted something milquetoast like "Should immigration be restricted?" doesn't remove from memory that a month before that question they said that minority immigrants were criminals. (This is just an example, you can replace specifics as you desire to make the same point.) Posters have memories. I don't think people asking a normal question should be treated as though they began to exist only after asking that normal question. Ideas aren't independent. People asking contentious questions have agendas and biases. That these agendas and biases are called out publicly without careful tact does not seem to be a failure of the community to me. I'll readily admit that some people jump the gun and extrapolate to a conclusion based on limited data. But this doesn't seem to be inherent to the community at large, and most of the time the extrapolations are closer to the truth than not.