Oh yeah? You're just saying that because you don't know nuthin' nohow, ya limey.

Bravo, sky. You are absolutely right.

I'd like to see less of the demeaning tone, insults, and name calling. I know - I go there, I will return fire with gusto.

I think some arguing here and there adds a little excitement, and doesn't really increase overall tension levels; not all the time, anyway. It works when people have the ability to argue somewhat creatively, and maybe sling a few insults; something more intelligent and funny than "stupid," or "bitch," or "fag."

But when someone just pops out with crass comments or insults, for no good reason other than to stir shit up, it's not even arguing...more like Tourette's of the keyboard. All it does is create an oppressive atmosphere.

I'd like to see more people admitting that the debate has changed their opinion. I think the main weakness today lies in people feeling that changing an opinion is backing down and a weakness. (Bush, anyone?) Pig-headedness rules. I think it shows more strength of character to show that you have read and considered othe people's opinions and reconsidered your own. But then I'm a loser ;)

I would rather someone admit when they were wrong.

I usually don't say when someone changes my opinion so I don't excpect them to do the same.

I agree with this, and I agree with Weird Harold. It mystifies me that people find insults amusing, and confrontation entertaining.

I do not find them so.

Get in line, buster. :)

There is a difference between constructive and therapeutic. Debate is often constructive for all parties concerned (opposing and spectator) as it forces reexamination that may either change; or, reinforce opinion. Argument often does not have this effect because it need not revolve around the topic at hand (e.g. it may be a personality conflict). Argument can be cathartic and even therapeutic; but, all too often for only one of the parties involved. Those who believe "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." might see argument as having a constructive purpose. In reality; however, what doesn't kill a person might cripple them for life.

When there is argument just for the sake of argument and it becomes a matter of one-upmanship (something of a sport), sometimes there are ingenious plays. It can be very entertaining. Arguments in which the parties are merely venting are not typically entertaining even though they may serve some useful purpose (see above).

I refuse to respond to another $#%#$ poll!


<j/k>;)

What would be the point?
Debate.
Arguments achieve nothing, they are for people who cannot control themselves and cannot learn from others.

bump

I found it interesting that rob had the last post in this thread - perhaps I should have left it that way.

Agreed. As I've typed before...attack the post, not the poster.

I've only just noticed that Rk's user account doesn't exist anymore. Thought he'd just vanished. Did he delete his account?

[joke]Classic nerd comeback.[/joke]