It has come to pass that any expression of personal values or social and political preferences is commonly dismissed as mere "virtue signaling" and hence a sort of rhetorical junk food lacking all nutritional input in a debate. Thus, this accusation effectively serves as an all-purpose, effectively baseless grounds for condemning anyone's values and preferences.
But consider the implications of this tactic for social and political discourse. Its common use allows its wielder in effect to denounce statements without argument or even a degree of respect necessary for engagement in such discourse. It boils down to something akin to ad hominem argument by allowing those who use it to avoid any argument or substantive disagreement, instead declaring that one's opponent has no "there" there with which someone might take substantive issue.
Of course, expressions of personal values or social and political preferences, standing alone, are not arguments. They should not be mistaken for analytical contributions to a discussion. However, they are not meant to do so by careful speakers or writers. To say that such expressions are not analytical, however, is not to say that they are nothing. Indeed, they are often more important than one's understanding of "how the world works," because ultimately they are the basis on which one goes, or declines to go, to the barricades.