Well, have you seen Kiroh's posts? His first post in the topic was quite aggressive, though he wasn't the only one immediately being hostile towards me to be fair. He was even lying (or at least misunderstanding) about things that I supposedly said in other posts, attempting to make me look foolish or like the villain, to gather support. That's a very underhanded debate tactic.
He even unwittingly revealed his misunderstanding of how insignificant the stats really are that WHM gives over CNJ with the pictures he posted comparing stats. Passionately defending a stance without being informed, to the point where you act as if your opponent is misinformed when they actually aren't, is quite insulting to your opponent.
So if any aggression did leak into my responses that I did not notice, don't you think it was a little justified? Though I find my posts to be assertive in my defense against militant people such as Kiroh posting in offense. I did not seek them out to insult their gameplay choice, doubt their skill, or fuss about something that harmed no one after all, they did come to me however, and Kiroh's very first post was aggressive and contained unfounded character doubts, assuming my intent was to "disregard 23 other people" for example, despite the fact that I still played my best, which proved to be more than enough. Going in with serious doubts or lack of experience about my abilities or not trying my best would have been disregarding the people.
I have not responded strongly to people who have not been combative either. I've been passive with people who have also been passive.
Debates aren't known for having the most tense-free atmospheres, and being overly passive in a debate is a great thing for your opponent to take advantage of, especially when your opponent is being aggressive and prodding at your character. And lying in attempts to get support is really quite childish, and misunderstanding but standing by inaccurate posts that still make your opponent look falsely bad isn't much better.