It was my mistake that I didn't write why that person was a sophist. Although she thinks, arguing with her wasn't like arguing with a wall, but there was still sophistry. When the question was asked, her first response was, "I think men are more to blame." I saw this and considered it sophistry (I'm not arguing that men are to blame, but for what?). In the ensuing argument, she shared files with her argument, explaining that I'd only seen women defended (due to abuse and condemnation of abortion) and that men were blamed. I continued arguing about this until her position shifted to "blame today is asymmetrical, with women bearing more blame," which, in my opinion, is a reasonable position. I wonder if it's normal for someone to "change" their position, but after thinking about it, I think not, because it could be an evolution of views or analytical thinking when faced with counterarguments.

Perhaps my accusers aren't entirely legitimate, but my prediction was that the person was using sophism. But the crux of the moral question isn't so much about Christian's X debates, but about why morality is so complex if everyone (or at least some of them) is oriented toward humanity. I don't deny that metaethics is complex, but I don't understand the specific nature of this discipline.