Wanting to describe a situation on the internet

This one is a bit weird. I want to describe a situation on the internet that developed into harassment. I want to give a general overview in the first paragraph and then describe the individual steps and arguments in more detail. But I find it hard to give that overview in the first paragraph and make it understandable without being too detailed. Generally one could find it overwritten anyway because I can't seem to get it done, also because it is unpleasant to me. I should mention that it still relies on having read the situation that is described, but I would prefer not to show it here (if it won't work then it won't work).

I have marked a part that gives me some trouble:

"Don't you he think the other person, by the fourth comment from above stopped to argue, deliberately and gratuitously escalated the situation, and, given the topic, probably calculated to do maximum damage? [This part is very general and suggestive, I find what follows more important.]
By not arguing and addressing anything, and using discrediting interpretations of what I had written to manipulate everything I was saying, he had also undermined normal argument and communication, thinking he could thereby „protect“ himself from counter-argument. I addressed this low, despicable behaviour, and in particular the absurd conceit that made him think he could behave in this way, which is just the ultimate proof of stupidity, wilful ignorance and worthless uses of time [the behaviour]. I used a tone I thought fitting but did not cease to argue. He then proceeded to harass me in the lowest and most shameless manner imaginable, making purely undermining remarks with the sole purpose to keep the conflict going and be as destructive as possible."

By the way, I basically use the same tone in the description in order to make it understood how and why it was used. Here is how I could explain that part in more detail to make it more understandable, but the paragraph seems to lose the focus of a first overview, rather than a full argument. It also presupposes a description of the individual steps in more detail, which I want to do afterwards, and I wonder if it would be too repetitive having mentioned these points and then explaining them again later:

"deliberately causing conflict is downright stupidity and a worthless use of time. Talking with absolute certainty about something which one does not know (and does not even concern oneself) and believing everything one wants to believe, including one's own manipulations, shows incredible gullibility and small-mindedness, to say the least, as well as lack of development. Doing this, instead of using argument, a justification or any complete statement in order to further a solution of some kind, in the name of (an overaffected) "simplicity", is the biggest contradiction possible. Attitude is never a substitute for argument, no matter who you think you are, and another sign of lack of development."

I suppose another possibility would be just to restrict oneself to the "absurd conceit"...