Really not. The «chosen words and ornament» are picked for communication, with the intent of facilitating that the interlocutor sees the point (and details). They - them words - are chosen for precision in case the interlocutor needs to analyze the written, just to be sure of having understood. The ornament just follows - it is presumably a byproduct of the structure.
Words such chosen are there out of awareness, so that «without being aware of the words he uses and the way he thinks» really needs all the extraordinary justification.
Those words describe not a «personal and whimsical world», but the only relatively personal description of facts, as they are seen. Debate is there to show that facts may be different. The «whirlpool» is broken by new facts or nuances gained about those facts; it is true that there is a mechanism of reinforcement, but avoiding the expression is not a solution.
The idea of «the elite stance he [would be] trying to gain in the society with the ornaments of the words and sentences he has formed» is extremely weak: it easily may be just your immature perception. There is no need for society for thinking - nor for status.
And when you make accusations like «fancy salad», you should show it on factual basis, on the actual matter, as opposed to sensation.
If you do not want to touch that food - if it is a «waste of time» for you -, you are probably participating in the wrong discussion.
--
There exist more domains: in some domains "Could you please pass me the salt" is a proper expression for exchange, whereas other domains use different expressions. The context in which you intervened is very practical. You know what happens if we do not dissipate ignorance, even worldly ignorance: as I said, «indigence and unaware butchers». There is also a fight against that kind of ignorance: because it is dangerous, worldly dangerous.
--
You are expressing yourself more clearly, but I encourage you to pay further attention - some parts of your speech remain too lax (too many possible interpretations).