This is a bit of a prudish topic, I'm sure, but a lot of issues I see with arguements on the internet have to do with substantiality.
Generally, an argument with no substantial material behind it is called a flame. The argument follows the lines of "THIS is good because it's good" or "IT'S bad because it's bad." The argument is always disjointed in both subject and substance, even from the initial subject. There is a strange distance.
Now, I, like the rest of the world, don't care about flame wars. They're annoying and stupid, but they don't change anything. If you're a big enough moron to argue with flames, chances are nothing anyone says will change your mind or how you continue living your life. What bothers me is when a flame tries to find justification.
Here are three popular flames:
1. An argument that is wrong: Rock Band 2 sucks because you can't import Rock Band 1 songs.
2. An argument that is wholly subjective and limited: Castalvania sucked because I didn't like it.
3. An argument which is inarguable: I liked Mass Effect 2 because it had guns.
An argument that is wrong is most common. I find them all the time on the internet, and even while playing PC games. They are the least annoying because they prove that they are morons out the gate. A very limited argument is often annoying because there isn't much you can say about it, but you can argue against it. Normally ending with more frustration than it started with. The last is just as bad as the first. Stating a fact as an argument isn't an argument at all, just misplaced substance, but you find them all over the place.
My issue isn't that these arguments are being made. The bare no effect on the world at large. My issue is that these arguments become glorified. Who cares? Why should anyone else care? It's nice to share your opinion, but at least have one first, or one that makes sense. It's annoying. Shut up.