Honestly, I know this point of view probably isn't going to be popular, but I see it as a natural outcome in a way- you have communities that are focused on a ruleset and once we get a replacement version, or even a branch ala the original pathfinder, the community has to pretty much figure out individually what they're doing in response- staying with their old version, going to the new version, this is especially true with games that do the same thing. My group plays Masks for our super hero game, Dungeons and Dragons for our fantasy game, and would theoretically play Chronicle of Darkness for a kind of supernaturals game, and maybe like Star Wars for the space and laser guns experience.
But now, with Pathfinder 2e coming out, I have a decision to make- it replicates the same kinds of stories that Dungeons and Dragons 5e does, but just does so through a different ruleset, I'm not really going to play both because the two are redundant experiences that would cost more money, more time to learn the rules, and mean that i'd be splitting my fantasy gaming time (and I'm the GM, so its not a question of popping down to different tables) so its kind of a situation where I need to sit down and contrast the two very directly to decide which one is the game that I actually want to stick with. That is functionally an internal edition war, what we see on the forums is people using discussion as a way to sus it out, selling their preferred game (and their viewpoints on why) to one another.
'Attacking' other people's games is kind of inevitable, because 'attacks' and 'the reasons I'm playing this instead' are generally the same thing, you can pretty it up with mitigating language, or try and phrase it as a perk of your game instead of perceived flaw of the other (which will probably beg an argument when other people notice the implication), but what you consider 'warring' is more or less, people discussing their perception of the two games and having the same arguments with one another they have with themselves.
