I thought it's clear when we ask a question that can't actually be answered

Except... it can, because I did? We're talking about a common industry practice here, not some enigmatic unsolvable mystery of the universe.

Of course it does.

No.

That's 100% the only reason why they use it this way.

Oh is it? Do you have an assertion for that? You really think that when they say "X slams Y" they're trying to make you think there's a physical altercation going on?

Notice how that's explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I'm taking issue with):

You'll notice I said in the context of headlines. Of course in other contexts slam can mean violence. But because we're specifically talking about headlines here, not, say, discussing a WWE performance, it's very obvious what "slams" means.

You're really going into the weeds here. You asked why they use "slams" in headlines so often, and I gave you an answer. I don't see why you feel the need to argue about it so much.

They use it because people understand what it means, it's emotive, and it's very concise compared to "criticises", "chastises", "denounces", "castigates", or "attacks"

Actually, based on your previous argument, you'd probably hate it if they said "attacks" too, as you could also interpret it as violence.