Debatable socmed flame tactics

For ten points (each), please comment on the following ideas re arguments in a proper (?) debate [after the pictural intermission]:

• Is this picture correct, in your opinion?
• At what layer does your comment on the previous question sit in the picture?
• Does the picture portray the debasement of your arguments, when you have none (left) at some higher level, to a lower level to try (ex ante in vein due to the debasement) to still try to win an argument?
• Would one’s inability to remain at the upper levels (allowing Quintilianus‘ essential remarks and tactics, i.e., allowing well-controlled level variation) or one’s inability to partake there in the first place, be an indication of allowance to (be!) shut up? As in this.
• Given chatbots’ ability to process comments at much higher than human, sufficient, speeds, could they intervene to silence, as above?
• How would AI tools have to develop to play a role in that, given the necessity to understand far- and wide-reaching contextual awareness, understanding of historical perspectives, puns of all sorts, etc.?
• How would that AI have to be trained, and continuous-learning-maintained, to capture societal, history and slang development?
• How would that AI have to be trained, and continuous-learning-maintained, to prevent it/them from slipping down the slope it/themselfves? [As here and here, to name just a few of the big ones’ misses, no to mention the great flood of chatbots that aren’t called out yet for the same and/or worse]
• How would that AI have to be trained, and continuous-learning-maintained, to prevent it from becoming the Central Scrutiniser, or Skynet ..!?
  Take into account we all want a free society (plural or global), and censorship of any kind runs against that unless applied diligently against flames, threats etc. on social media where the purpose seems to be one-upmanship among … [friends ..!?] and absolute fear of death by utter remain of anonymity regardless of the damage inflicted, where only the most retarded (furthest away from actual contribution) ‘win’ the battle for worst comment, thus ensuring their incredible unremarkability on the world stage [they’re not even anything near the stage, on another planet rather… If only they were] to continue. But when comment(or)s are overly easily branded that way, stifling of sane political discussion is ’round the corner.

Asking this for a friend. All answers need to be supplied with ample valid argument. Cartoons may be used. Comments on the author will be treated as indicated above, or worse. Much worse. Do not I repeat do not bet on it / your cunning. A picture to relax:
[Sturdy XOR attention-seeking pink; your choice. London, a couple of years ago and not really downtown or is it ..?]