There's a general pattern, not just with crypto. It happens all the time.
Group A makes a bold claim. Group B thinks it over, finds issues, and comes back to A with objections they need to address for B to agree.
A does not address them to B's satisfaction, or maybe just ignores them, and repeats the original claim. B objects again. A repeats the claim or adds new claims B also objects to.
After a few rounds of this, B becomes exasperated and stops giving a compete rebuttal. The longer it goes on, the shorter and more flippant B's responses get.
At some point B decides that A is acting in bad faith. Since their objections haven't been addressed, B starts to combat the claim. They reject it out of hand with no apparent effort to consider it, make aggressive counterclaims, and openly question A's motives.
New members of A, who may have never made the claim before or heard the objections, see B's immediate hostility and think they never gave the claim a chance. Some elements of A encourage this misunderstanding and make new claims that B is biased.
B sees this as further evidence of A's bad faith and starts to openly attack the group, not just their claims. A continues to say B is hostile and unfair, and also keeps making the claim.
Eventually it's just a giant mess of different subgroups at different points in this cycle and no more discussion can happen.
And the mess is hugely magnified if A or B or both are really full of bad-faith actors.