Has respectful (thoughtful) debate given way to simple opinion giving?  Your thoughts--?
102821
Yes i believe so. I have found that in posting certain controversial, debatable issues, the majority of the responses I have received have been either opinions in the form of absolute truth with no backup or 'witty' one-liners aimed at one-upping me in an attempt to make me look stupid. Pretty disappointing.
505952
Its doubtful that a statement regarding religion has ever been made without offending someone. In the world of religious discussion we have the offense provokers, and the easily offended. I think how one approaches the communication of their personal thought on religion depends on the forum in which the encounter is taking place.\n  For example, on a first date, its best to avoid religious discussion altogether (especially if you remembered to bring a condem). \n  \nIn church, its best to agree with whatever is said. (especially if you want to be invited to the after-ceremony donuts)\n  \nIn casual discussion over dinner, you should be firm about why you think your viewpoint is right, but its probably best to avoid pointing out why your dinner quests viewpoint is wrong. (unless you want a pork-chop rammed up your bung)\n\nHaving said that, I think that a religious DEBATE is different. In an intellectual debate, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in another's theory or viewpoint. This is a part of what debating means. If someone is offended by criticism of their viewpoint in a debate, then they dont understand what debating entails. What we should always try to avoid however, is personal attacks. Its perfectly fine to attack one's views in a debate, but never to attack the debater themselves. So, a statement such as "Your theory about vanilla ice cream leading to orgasms is unlikely to be true because ice cream does not stimulate the sympathetic nervous system" are fine, but you should not say "It figures you would think vanilla ice cream causes orgasms because you can not get a date".\n  \nHaving said all that....GOD DOESN'T EXIST..SO THERE!!
1086436
Yes.  I believe what you're talking about is ad hominem argument.  Even if you don't agree with a question, you have no right to attack the asker or assume the question is for shock value.  My stance is, "If you don't like the question, ignore it."
1006378
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "SOME".  Some of any group will just talk trash, liberal or conservative.  It's what people do.  You probably just notice liberals more because you know that crazy, irrational conservatives aren't representative, because you're a conservative and you don't think you're irrational.  It's pretty classic prejudice.\nI really think civil discourse is as possible as it ever was.  You just have to wade through lots of jibberish to find it.  I like to remind myself that people have reasons for thinking the way they do.  It helps me differentiate what's a good argument from what's a bad.  When someone acts like one side is completely unreasonable, then that person generally has a bad argument.  But when someone thoughtfully discusses opinions in a respectful manner, that person is usually using good arguments.  Because they don't have to defend with emotion.
716631
i agree with you completely ......... i usually keep my mouth shut if  i don't know the answer (unless someone bashes me of course - that's self defence LOL)\n\ni feel that it's better to ''waste'' 5 points on saying ''hi, have a nice day'' than on spreading the worm of hatred\n\nhi, have a nice day :)
894909
Disagreement in and of itself is NOT the problem.\n\nIt is how we deal with the disagreement.  Do we respect each other's opinions?  Or do we just claim that people who disagree with our way our going to Hell?\n\nDo we let the disagreements get in the way of the practice of love and making the world a better place and especially helping the poor people?\n\nThe choice is ours.  We make it every day.
177067
do you know, that bugs me too, i like a good debate, a different opinion that can be expanded and discussed is great, doesnt mean that its a personal attack, i consider my self  sensative but i love a good debate thats how the world moves forward dont you think.
803671
Atheist here, and yes, I have indeed tried to see the other side of the arguement.\n\nI was raised Lutheran from infancy, so I've got 20+ years of Christian teachings under my belt. Went to church services and Sunday School weekly. With my family not going was NOT an option. I also own a Bible as a result of Sunday School attendance. New Revised Standard Version(NRSV), not a King James or any other version, but it's a Bible nonetheless. And yes, I have read it. The most recent time was this summer.\n\nSo there's no way that I'm unqualified to speak on religious matters as far as Christianity's concerned.\n\nWhen I answer questions on here or the rare times I'm able to speak with someone personally about religion and not end up in a fight over it, I try to see their side of the arguement, provided they haven't jumped right into insults and "You're wrong" and "You're going to burn in Hell" sort of crap right off the bat. Unfortunately, a lot of people where I live do just that, so you can see why it's rare I'm able to speak civilly with people in my hometown about religion.\n\nWhen it comes to insults and bigotry, I don't even bother. I walk away from people who talk like that to me in person and on YA, if I see questions I feel are biased or worse, I don't even bother to answer them. If a person's honest and polite, I'm all too happy to answer. If a person's just being an obnoxious jerk, I don't even waste my bandwidth.\n\nWith polite people, I do try to see their side of the arguement, especially when I do already understand Christianity. When it comes to other religions I'm not as familiar with, even though I might not fully understand them, I try to, and I do defend other religions as I know that religion itself isn't a bad thing. No truly bad religions, just bad followers.\n\nYes, I have even defended Christianity more than once. I defended it just a few minutes ago with the question I answered just before this one about the whole church and state and prayer in school issue. A lot of Christians think they don't have the right to pray in a public school, but I've looked into that myself for the last ten years.\n\nJust because it was decided in 1963 that it wasn't right and constitutional to require kids to recite a prayer(from my mother, it sounds like it was usually the Lord's Prayer, at least when she was young. Seeing as how the ruling was made long before I was born, I can't say if that was standard or just what my mother's school did), doesn't mean Christianity is "banned". Christian kids can freely pray or read the Bible or hold Bible clubs(if they allow things like photography clubs, they can allow Bible and other religious clubs as well) or invite another classmate to join them for services.\n\nI might be an atheist and I might not want my own children to have to recite the Lord's Prayer or any prayer in school, doesn't mean I won't stand up for the rights of Christians and anyone else who's religious to have their beliefs at school, or when holding office, or whatever. Just because you step into a public place, doesn't mean you have to leave your beliefs at home. All it means is that you have to be aware and respectful of others and that goes for everyone.\n\nI was raised Christian and had my own beliefs(and eventually nonbelief as I was sort of paganistic for a time before I turned to atheism) stepped on and treated as if I was undeserving before. My own family has unfortunately taken to this sort of behavior from time to time. It's happened to me way too many times, so I'm not about to do it to anyone else.\n\nI have gone to church, I've read the Bible, I've studied church and state matters and tried to learn about and understand other religions for some time. I've had painful personal experiences when it comes to my beliefs being stepped on.
808102
I am admittedly old, but I have to wonder what has become of simple human consideration.  There was a time when children were taught that invading another person's space without invitation was rude.  \n\n   I live in a neighborhood that is a real mixed bag, we run the gammut from serious gun rack redneck to yuppies jogging with their 2.3 kids in the special jogging set up.\n\n   I look out my kitchen window and I see show dogs and nasty looking pit bulls being walked by people with tatoo's.\n\n   It's all good to me.  As long as we respect each other and one another's space.\n\n   Seems to me you invaded this woman's space and law asside, you frightened her.  You may not have meant to, but you did.  The right way to resolve this is for you to go and see her and tell her you are sorry, and then talk about boundaries. \n\n   It works for neighbors, and it can work for Nations.\n\n   Consider antagonists as two dots, the shortest distance between them is a straight line, logic dictates that you go to her.   How can you go to her and expect a good result?\nAdmit you scared her, and say you are sorry.  How can you both have closure?  Talk to each other, leave the cops out, leave parents out....talk and resolve.\n\n   It is how the world works.  Or so it often seems to me.
201621
Don't you think that your question is a little ironic.  I mean, obviously you are not a liberal.  Your question is asking when will debates be more civil, but in the next sentence you're offending those you are debating with.\n\nMaybe that's your problem!
516762
Truthfully,we're all hypocrites and critics because most of us don't know how to properly conduct a mature discussion or debate without the use of attacking others.\nEven though this is a Q&A forum still I don't expect to find any legitimate answers to anything in here so that is why I normally goof around and collect my two points on this site.
935449
As always you have the thought provoking questions. I agree with your question and comments along with Monizk and Heartstrings. I have my own opinions but I will not go into them as they are fairly long. \nAs a general rule I don't debate politics and religion or argue with drunks, fools or idiots. Too many of them have lots of experience of spouting ill informed rhetoric.\nI support Bush and what the military is now doing. I don't want Kerry or Clinton representing me. They are of the same mold and are an embarrassment to the people they are supposed to represent. They apologize but are they truly apologetic?
791657
Cindy, thank you for your provocative question.  It would be refreshing to hear honest and sincere debate and discourse.  Instead, there is an over abundance of "name-calling", "vulgarity", and "rage".  Often we treat and speak to our dog better than the President of the United States or in reference to our Creator. Neither Democrats or Republicans are "idiots" though we sometimes behave as such and God is alive and well and still putting up with our "un-like" God behaviors.
4428
Hadn't noticed nor do I care, people are people and I have not seen any arguements over the best answer picked. Some people may simply think it was not the best answer and give it a thumbs down due to that. All that matters here is the asker was satisfied.
1109242
It's easy to give an opinion but hard to listen to another especially if it's not the same as yours.\n\nI for one invite opposing views life's more interesting that way.\n\nWould rather hear what you really believe than being surrounded by yes men.
1147289
It's the same thing with every other category here (especially religion and politics)...people just like getting their two-cents in, I guess, whether you want their opinion or not.  I understand your frustration, though, people could make better use of their time by answering questions that they know something about or where their opinion is actually wanted.
664741
No. Intelligent people always question and debate the issues that the masses believe: Politics and Religion in particular. Never stop questioning because that is what the Government and Religious organizations want from people. :o)