Ha actually now that you mention it I have also witnessed the chopsticks bit. It's usually something along the lines of "why do people use chopsticks when they're not Asian?" To which I tend to respond "they want to feel more authentic?" But I'm usually joking. And to be fair I do find it odd that westerners use chopsticks especially if they didn't grow up using them for all meals but only Chinese food. I mean it's not as if the chopsticks makes the General Tso's Chicken taste more Chinese.
In his case he just prefers it as a utensil for a variety of noodle types of all sorts of ethnic origins rather than the typical Chinese chain restaurant """authenticity""" that Americans always try to pretend to have. I don't really understand it but to each his own.
As for the notion of children engaging in political debates eh, maybe primary age is too young I'll grant that but once High School age starts not only do curriculum and standard rubric necessitate an understanding of proper argumentation but there's plenty of avenenus for practice like debate teams, model UN, mock Justice Court, mock elections (and student body elections for that matter) so I feel it's incorrect to subdue or discourage teens from engagement because you have to start somewhere and the more practice you get in persuasive argument the better you become.
I'm not arguing against polishing technical ability, I'm saying that those type of discussions aren't really productive to begin with. Proper debate isn't about "winning" in that regard, but about properly conveying your opinions and beliefs to the other person so they can evaluate what you are saying and compare it to their own opinions. If you're going into this with a competitive mindset then you are doing it wrong. It's not about forcefully trying to change someones mind with Facts and Logic™, but giving and receiving new insights that either party hadn't considered before. Sometimes minds will change and sometimes they will remain as they were, but overall you can be sure that both parties are more enlightened and educated on their respective opinions.
That is not what is being described here nor what you see in 99.9% of "debates". Most of what you actually see are conducted by people with ulterior motives (virtue-signalling, bullying, ego, etc) rather than pursuing the topic itself, and without any real understanding of the topic at hand and just going off regurgitated scripts they've heard other people use. When you start "countering" arguments with a character judgement (e.g. you're racist so you're wrong) you betray that you don't have an fundamental understanding of the topic and are merely concerned with winning an argument.
This goes double for schoolkids as well, where they are often merely regurgitating what they heard from their parents or Twitter and don't actually have real opinions on things. You can't change something or enlighten someone that wasn't there in the first place. It's already bad enough with all the rampant bullying and kids pretending to be important without throwing in adult-sanctioned bullying and exclusion like politics.
Now I'm all ok with a good slapfight (which is why I still post here) but you have to be able to separate your own feelings, ego, and social identity if you want to stay safe. It is a slapfight at the end of the day and it should primarily be done for one's own amusement. If it causes one to run complaining to random strangers on the internet and feel "threatened" then it is probably time to stop at least doing this in public. From what little was described in the OP this sounds more like "Grr I have to make the other guy admit they are wrong" rather than anything productive. My advice would be to do something more fun or productive instead as nothing said or done in school is likely going to matter in ten years.