Arguments go nowhere at a rate of adjective and/or adverb used per sentence

I'm a patent examiner and most days I exhaust my capacity for adjectives and adverbs.  My theory is that, in non-fiction writing, arguments that don't progress understanding come with markers; and those markers are adjectives and adverbs.

In patents the words "clearly", "erroneously", "obviously", and "merely" are used.  These words are filler for a lack of understanding, respect, or both.  In the patent law, one of the determinations that has to be made for every application, is whether or not the patent application is obvious in view of the prior art.  This non-obviousness requirement is a litigated issue, see Graham v Deere, KSR v. Teleflex etc.  It costs time and money to argue about what is obvious.  What would happen, I wonder at least once a day, if non-obvious were better defined or not a requirement; how much money and time would be saved?

Adjectives and adverbs also rude up the place, for a good example see a Patent attorney melt down in a legal response, it's full of adjectives and adverbs.  Adjectives and adverbs don't persuade people whose job it is to decide things, to decide a certain way, see douchebag bingo.  Finally, adjectives and adverbs don't progress the argument because adjectives and adverbs don't add facts.  Adjectives and adverbs cover a lack of facts.  For example:

• Don't say something is fast when you can say it goes 1000km/h.    
• Don't say Usain Bolt is fast, say Usain Bolt won a gold medal in the 100m dash
• Don't say "the reference clearly doesn't teach allocating power..." Say "the reference does not use the words 'allocate' or 'power' anywhere within its disclosure."
• Don't say "the opposing party merely seeks to confuse the court..." Say, "The opposing party has submitted 678 claims..." Let the judge decide if 678 claims shows an intent to confuse.

In all the above examples, adjectives and adverbs added no facts and confused the point with how the writer feels about the point.  I realize that sometimes a term of art is an adjective or adverb and therefore has to be used, but I limit my use of adjectives and adverbs to terms of art as much as I can.

Adjectives and adverbs confusing the issue recently happened between two people that I admire.  Here is a case study in how adjectives and adverbs hurt feelings and muddy waters.  Full disclosure: I put 130$ into Rob Rhinehart's Soylent meal replacement shake kickstarter and I am excited about the product; And I own all of Tim Ferriss' books, I work similar to the prescription in Tim's four hour work week book, I leaned out with Tim's four hour body book; and I learned how to draw using the compressed learning techniques in Tim's four hour chef book.  

Soylent is a meal replacement shake invented by Rob Rhinehart.  Rob made a shake, he ate only the shake for a period of time, then he reported his results.  Rob perceived some critique of his shake, so he responded with adjectives and adverbs.  For example, "We are more serious about health..."  What does "serious" mean?  Serious is not defined and I don't even know how to measure it.  Serious doesn't add a fact; Serious doesn't require a fact to be rebutted; and it is relative to some point that we can't know.  Rob could have said "We are more happy about health..." and it would have added just as many facts to the argument.

Tim responded by calling the argument "underhanded and deceptive".  Under whose hand, how is hand position relevant, and who is deceived -- while we are on it, what is the international unit of measurement for deception. I suggest Maddoffs as a unit, and I say that Rob's argument was 20 milliMaddoffs.  I'm trying to make jokes now, but I hope it gets my point across.  Two things have been said, feelings have been hurt, and the argument has not gotten anywhere closer to conclusion.  Why say something if you're not progressing some train of thought, or progressing the course of an argument?