But I know what you mean. I've looked at those embedded flames with a little disgust, but I can't seem to come up with a clear answer. They're on-topic, in a general sense, because the flames are anchored to a subject of interest in space science, despite descending into mudslinging over personalities making various claims.

I recently criticized the tone of the discussion on Current Vents, and it was on-topic in the sense that the way the debate is being conducted is a "meta-issue" indicative of the mental state not just of Zoners but of the American people as well. Partisan passions affect not just the debate here but how decisions are made in Washington and how voters will behave in the next election.

I think a similar concept applies to heated discussions about science. Scientists and amateurs aren't robots, and personalities do matter. Sometimes a theory or argument is judged by the person advancing it, despite conscious attempts at objectivity. Further, discussions about topics like Mars versus asteroid watch, or whether to proceed with a Mars sample-return mission, have a strong political element. At some point the debate becomes one of public policy, and politicians will be influenced by personalities and clever rhetoric. If you look at it that way, isn't the Zone (again) just a microcosm of the outside world?