The side defending Romney, while entrenched in defending their side, seemed less inclined to engage in such ridiculousness. This had less to do with the quality of their character and more with just the nature of the race where Romney had a minimal or contradicting track record to run on and was essentially trying to win at being "not Obama."
Even though I was more detached on this issue, in general being entrenched and engaging in such seemingly unreasonable arguments is not such a bad thing in the right context. In recent years I've come to appreciate that arguments can be about loyalty, too, and can bind people together in a way that shear focus on truth and logic can't. It just makes more sense irl situations where you're dealing with people that have a large impact on your life.
Surrendering reasonability for loyalty to Obama or Romney is stupid since neither of them give a shit about you.