I think another way of looking at what you said is people can feel threatened or diminished by certain arguments, even if they're not directed at them, when certain cherished premises are challenged, and part of learning to argue well is to learn to take those feelings as signals that the argument needs to be looked at closely and seriously, but not as truth. It's not the final word, but more checking needs to be done to see if one's own premises are close to reality or not. Of course, that always needs to be done, but from what I see, many people are not equipped to deal with an argument that hits a nerve, much less to listen to ideas that don't agree with each other, and consider the argument based on its content, not on attitudes ("What it sounds like or feels like").
Since "fast and slow" have been a part of the discussion here, perhaps what I'm describing has to do with the relationship between "System 1" and System 2?