Imagine you were at a medical conference and a speaker got up to present a controversial view of an important topic. Perhaps it's on something most doctors only have a superficial understanding of the subject in question and have always assumed that the accepted treatment is a certain drug while this doctor feels that a different drug has enough evidence behind it to be included in the guidelines.
He spends the next hour or two painstakingly reviewing the literature up to now, the results of his own research and his conclusions based on both. Then, at the end of the talk someone in the back of the audience stands up as if to ask a question. He's quickly recognized as the dean of a prominent medical school who has been published more times than anyone can count and is regarded as a superior authority amongst doctors.
But instead of asking a question he says "Doctor, if I have to call you that, your presentation sucked eggs and you're a poopy head for even thinking that this treatment should be included in the guidelines." Then, before he can be confronted on his statement, he walks out of the hall with a "I told 'im good!" look on his face.
Given who the antagonist is, it's doubtful anyone would call him on his behaviour. After all, despite his rudeness he is still one of the most accomplished (if not the most) doctors in the room. In addition, there are always political considerations. You don't go calling the dean of a medical school out in public over perceived bad behaviour. However, there is no question that his words would be seen as a diatribe, not a valid objection to the presentation. Until someone gets up and addresses all of the first presentation's issues on an proper academic basis, the first presenter's position is effectively unchallenged.
In summary: you don't object to another person's learned position by heaving insults. That's childish and unacceptable in such a forum.
Which makes me wonder: if in the secular halls of academia and science such behaviour is unacceptable, why is it consider de rigeur by some in the Torah world?
A year or two ago Rav Michael Broyde, the head of the Beis Din of America and an important Modern Orthodox posek and talmid chacham published a lengthy article on the issue of married women covering their hair. His objective, for those who actually read the piece, was not to pasken a lenient position or to simply say "Hey, it's okay for married women not to cover their hair". He noted that there have always been Jewish women who were yirei shamayim and scrupulous in their performance of the mitzvos, although they didn't cover their hair. The purpose of the article was to explore those legal opinions that might have been the basis for their lack of observance of this important rule.
Was the article flawless? Of course not, and while I would not dare to criticize Rav Broyde, others in the Modern Orthodox world did, writing rebuttals to point out what they thought were incorrect assertions or weak points in his article. That's fine, of course. The proper evolution of halacha is built around scholarly discourse between talmidei chachamim who are together interested in reaching God's truth. I would even hazard a guess that Rav Broyde was happy that his article generated discussion.
And then there was a response from the Chareidi community of Toronto from Rav Shlomo Miller, the Gadol HaIr if that benighted city could claim to have one. Rav Miller is well-reknowned for his greater in Torah and his high level of piety. He commands the respect of much of the Torah-observant community of Toronto. And he essentially called Rav Broyde a poopy head.
Look at the text of his position. No "and here's where I disagree" or "clearly Rav Broyde is a learned individual". Just insult after insult, followed by a "and you're too stupid I'm not going to even bother arguing with you about this" at the end. This is an appropriate response to Rav Broyde's piece? This is how a person soaked in piety and middos speaks about a fellow observant Jew? This is how one responds to a person's attempt to melamed zechus on a portion of the population that might be missing out on an important mitzvah?
But just like the dean of the medical school in my fictional account, there will be no calling him out on this for a few reasons. One is that Rav Miller is unlikely to spend time talking respectfully with those who are ideologically different that him. The "yes men" that surround him will only work to reinforce the correctness of his action. Further, when one's world opinion is based on the underlying assumption that "if you disagree with me you're wrong and I don't have to discuss why", there is little chance for a meeting of minds to occur.
All this has done for me is make me wonder, yet again, where it's written in the Shulchan Aruch (or maybe the Zohar) that wearing a black hat gives one a valid excuse for having no manners or civility.