Reasoned Debate vs Insults

I recently got in an argument with a person on Facebook. It wasn't on purpose.

There was an inline ad that came up in my feed about Marsy's Law for Idaho, asking people to sign a petition to give victims rights so that perpetrators would not have more rights than the victims. But no where in the petition, nor on the fb page, or the [Learn More] button does it explain what rights you are petitioning them to provide.

The conversation went like this:

After that she did not respond, so I guess, win for me? Not that I was looking for a win, I wasn't even looking for a debate. Just to point out the fallacies with the post and the hiding what you are signing, and for that I was attacked. For believing Kavanaugh did not do anything to Ford, because of a complete lack of evidence, I was called names and had assumptions made about me -- which are totally false, btw, I would not have voted for Trump. I would have looked at the Green Party, or some other libertarian centrist independent candidate.

I just found Miss Hemingway's way of response a bit extreme. Perhaps it is the anonymity of the Internet that emboldens her to speak so, to insult and yell (caps are still yelling, right?). When discussing the Kavanaugh trial she then switches to something completely unrelated to back up why Kavanaugh is an abuser.

She reframes the argument when she is losing because she can't stand on the facts, because she thinks feelings are more important. She thinks Ford's tears are more important than Kavanaugh's life and career. He's a man, other men have abused, so he must be an abuser. I have been abused, so she must have been abused.

But that isn't the way it works in reality. I know the radical leftist SJWs are trying to change reality, but as Ben Shapiro said, "The facts don't care about your feelings."