@ OP. Possibly because people are sadly misinformed about science, such as your understanding of Facts and Theories. Scientists do not deal in "Facts". They deal in Observations, hypothesis and Theories. Science is not a trolling contest: When actual scientists, or at least skeptically minded folk engage in discussion, the result is almost always unity in ideas, or the acceptance that there remains a doubt due to the lack of evidence. A scientist can be convinced of anything where evidence is concerned. Most of the time, personal emotion doesn't come into discussions (Though no-one is perfect). Please don't make this assertion, it isn't correct. People arguing whether life evolved or was created is not scientific discussion, nearly all forum posts about science are not scientific discussion, it is personal opinion and belief.
What you see are observations: Gravities effect on unsupported objects (Falling) is an observation.
A hypothesis explains this, and potentially connects elements, explaining things. A hypothesis is considered incorrect (Null Hypothesis) until tested, to around 95-99% certainty that there is an effect not previously explained. I may hypothesis that things fall by being attracted to each other, or by their being an external force pulling on them. I assume this to be incorrect until I can Prove it.
When hypothesis are proven, and demonstrated, to the point where they both explain the phenomena and can stand up to the criticism of other scientists (Peer Reviewed Research) it may become a theory. Theories are generally as close to "Facts" as it comes in science. They explain phenomena and accurately predict outcomes. Theories are usually accepted by above 90% of scientists in the field.
Gravity is a theory, yet our understanding of it led us to the moon.
Evolution is a theory, yet it is used to help understand our origins, and has potential applications in the treatment of viruses (Such as the Flu).
Germ Theory is a Theory, (Lol) which is the only reason that hospitals make people healthier rather than killing them (Prior, infection was unexplained, and doctors were not hygienic)
A theory is simply the BEST explanation at the time, fitting the elements (Newton's gravitational theory is accurate for the earth system, but doesn't explain accurately the motion of planets. Einstein's static volume universe theory was incorrect, but his relativity work and equations contributed to understanding the expanding universe which replaced it)
People should understand the "Theory" Never implies a doubt. It implies as far as science is concerned, a certainty. The term "Open-Minded" is often misused, being open minded doesn't have any impact on science. I'm no zealot, but if someone tries to convince me that dismissing psychics (Who have never scientifically proven their abilities) is closed minded, and that I should give them my money, they're failing to understand the difference between skepticism and denial.
Science is Closed-Minded. You're assumed to be incorrect (Null-Hypothesis) unless you can prove or demonstrate evidence to prove your claims. If your ideas are good, then evidence backs them up, and Science expands. If you require no evidence, then why won't you believe in my Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Sorry for the Wall'o'Text TLDR: Scientific debate has never been, and is not, a "Troll off". It is reasoned discussion, where beliefs and hypothesis must coincide with evidence.
To assert otherwise is wrong, and simply poisoning the well for less informed people who believe that unqualified discussion and personal philosophy are scientific discussion.
