Whatever Happened to the Art Of Debate? Where Did All the Civility Go?

Joshua,

Let me be the first to tell, this is so stupid!!! Shut up already!
(Just kidding) ;-)

Excellent, well-thought through piece.

Welcome to the world of gray. We do not, and never have, lived in a zero-one, black/white world. Things are never simple. Never have been.

We spend a lot of time, and create amazing amounts of complexity trying to make the world simple. Example: Religion. We have a great deal of trouble coming to grips with our mortality. We have invented incredibly complex sets of rules, laws and commandments, all to answer the question "What happens when I die?".

We are human beings, with our faults, our desires, our dreams. If you take the religious view, you could say God made exactly how we are, and has set us on our path.

I like what the Buddhists have to say about the purpose and goal of life: Relieve suffering.

Then, no matter what situation or moral complexity you are faced with, relieving suffering is your guide, your principles and your test.

I think God would approve.

Again, great piece.

You are very sensible, and very clear thinking. And you are right. Not everyone is as reasonable as you are. Especially under the current administration, this country has become extremely polarized. I have to admit to being on the left in that issue, but I do wish to maintain some respectability in interactions with others.
Our opinions will not change the world. Only our actions will.

Oh for the love of Mike, I wish everyone would just quit their mindless bellyaching. I'm right, and you're wrong, and there will be no further discussion.

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

You make some very valid points, especially in regard to the way people often seem to build the foundation of their opinions on the bedrock of their parents. It is good to investigate the filters through which we examine the world.

People who can have lively discussions about modern issues and beliefs without dismissing, marginalizing, or demonized opposing viewpoints are becoming rare. We don't see much thoughtful discourse in public places.

Candida, I think you make a great point. "I feel if I can't keep friends yet keep my own, then they weren't worth having in the first place." At first I sort of came at it with that perspective. But it's a difficult issue. Some people just don't like debating. They enjoy living in a sort of ignorant bliss. And, while that's not me, I can't force them all to sort of step out of their dillusions. I sort of have to be respectful towards their opinionlessness.

Anyhow, playing devils advocate is wonderfully fun. I have a friend who always takes the side not being debated, no matter how ridiculous it is. It's not necesarily his belief, but he hates when a debate turns into a forum of complete consensus. People don't love him, but I think they learn a lot, because he is well-researched. He can make a good case for anything among a group of people pulling facts out of thin air.

Joshua,
I like how you didn't just state your beliefs as single-sentence facts but rather presented them as the result of logical thinking and real thought. You leave yourself open to discussion, but you start from a given point. How disappointing not to find someone with the same approach to chew on these meaty topics.

I also agree: friends of the best sort will remain friends even if there are differences in viewpoint. We have to be friends of the person we've befriended, not of our own viewpoints reflected back to us intact. IN that case, you're really only admiring yourself and not seeing the person you call friend.

Lots of food for thought here. Nice job!

Eric, I live in the world of gray, lol. I think you're completely right. But, the fun of the debate is to throw everyone into the mix, those who do perceive the world as black and white, those who view it as gray, and then among all those people throw in an artist or two. Just kidding. But one can only get to the gray if one understands the black and white of any matter. And some matters are just so complex that you may even need to throw in a tinge of red or blue.

Religion is an interesting phenomenon. Like I said, I'm a Christian. In my life, it's the one thing I don't think will ever change. It colors all of my perspectives, at least in some degree. Like with gay marriage for example, ultimately, the reason I can't support it is religious. But along with my religious convictions I understand that I live in a secular world. And to expect a world imbued with all different perspectives--Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Secularists, gays, lesbians, blacks, whites, men, women-- I can understand how it is that we don't all agree on everything. And when it comes to a religion that claims to be the "narrow path" that few will find, I fail to comprehend how a Christian can expect the rest of the world to be held to its standard.

What is wonderful about humanity, though, and I think this is one of the reasons religion in some capacity is sort of a social norm, is because humans love to search. There is something innately wonderful about knowledge.

Joshua- We think very much alike. Thanks for the article, I enjoyed it.

Great piece, Joshua. This is one of my pet topics these days. Nobody really listens to each other, they just spout back and forth from diametrically opposed starting points.

Politicians, obviously, are the best example. A by-product, I suppose, of our two party system. But it's gotten so predictable that I am assuming each party gives any new Member of Congress a little card to keep in their pocket providing instructions on how to deal with reporters. For example:

Dear New Member of Congress, Here is a proposed press response that should work in nearly every situation if a reporter asks you " Mr. Congressman, how do you feel about issue X?"

You shoud provide a 3 part answer as follows:

Part 1: "Well, you know that is an area where the [insert opposing party] have really failed miserably.

Part 2: "In fact, this would not even be an issue if it weren't for all the failed policies of the [insert opposing party].

Part 3: "The American People deserve better than that and I'm here to tell you that the [inser your party] are here to provide it as soon as you elect more of us.

Joshua, reading your comment above, it occurs to me that people like to debate morality, but not consequences.

We could debate endlessly about the morality of abortion, but facing the teen who has just been raped, I don't think we would be debating.

Or, we can defend the war's morality, but how many among us could walk house to house and kill people for a living?

Nancy, thank you. I have to say, when it comes to politics, I love polarized people. Regardless of what side they are on, I love hearing their side of things, especially if their perspectives are well thought-out. In this world there are are facts and there are opinions. A good opinion has good fact behind it. My synthesis of those facts may lead me to a completely different conclusion, but I the more facts I have, the better buttressed my opinion can be--conservative, liberal, or whatever. I've read your stuff on Gather. You're not stupid, and I know that you think. So, I can't imagine your polarization is unwarranted.

Cheryl, yeah that whole quoting your parents thing has always bothered me. I love talking to people who throw out a fact, you ask where they got it and they say, "My dad told it to me." It's hard for a person to come to the realization that their parents aren't always right.

Thoughtful discourse, now there's a new thought. lol. Isn't it strange how loud thinking often appears to trump good thinking?

Dannielle, haha, brevity has never been my forte. When I would tell my father about movies I'd seen as a kid, he'd always stop me and say, "Josh, summarize." I guess I didn't listen.

Jake, I love that. It's so true. When it comes to politics, it's hard to know who stands where. I was working on one political campaign. A guy ran up to the candidate on a parade route.

He said, "sir, near my house is pig farm. It stinks up the entire area. If I vote for you, are you going to do something about that."

The politician looked at him and said, "we certainly can't have you living uncomfortably now, can we?"

The gentlemen said, "thank you, thank you so much." and waved, a new supporter.

I just laughed realizing that the politician committed to absolutely nothing, but, still won another vote.

Eric, I think that's the importance of putting yourself in hypotheticals. One of my best friends got pregnant last year. My couldn't believe that she, a good Christian girl, could have sex outside of marriage. She decided to keep the baby. When my parents found out they ran over to her house and talked to her parents. They asked if they were all right and if there was anything they could do. They didn't even talk to the girl, in fact, they haven't talked to here or the parents since, the baby's a year old now. I sat long and hard trying to figure out what I wanted to say to her. I ended up deciding that my first words to her were going to be "congratulations!"

WHen I said it, she paused. I don't think she expected it. But she smiled and said "Thank you." I think the situation is an interesting one in that she made a choice that I wouldn't necesarily have made, but she made it. It's no one's fault. And now, she has to accept the consequences, good or bad. For her, the situation wasn't so hypothetical. But she's doing it. She's dealing with the consequences incredibly well. If anything, I have more respect for her now than I did before. I realized, she's lived the situation. I can judge and judge and judge, but I can only speculate as to how I'd react in similar circumstances. But she can talk from experience.

I think it is in line with the girl who is raped. I can't know what she's going through. If it were a friend of mine, and she asked me what I thought, I would encourage her to keep the baby. But, if she decided to abort the child, and if she needed someone to drive her to the clinic, I would rather drive her there and be the shoulder she cries on afterwards than trust anyone else to do it.

You have it figured out pretty well.

Again, if it isn't affecting me personally, the test of "relieve suffering" leads me in the right direction.

I'm not a Christian, but many of my Christian acquaintences feel strongly about WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do? for those unfamiliar).

To me, "relieve suffering", WWJD? Golden Rule, are all the same thing. Compassion for our fellow humans, leave the dogma at the door.

I think debate is fine in the abstract. Only action matters.

Nice thread you've got going here! Very interesting stuff.

"When it comes to gay marriage, I think it a matter of morality. I don't think that men should be able to marry men or that women should marry women. My perspective is that Gays are not barred from marriage as blacks were banned from certain liberties. Gays can get married, but in the same way everyone else can get married. A gay man is not barred from getting married because he's gay, like a black man was barred from a restaurant because he was black. Gays simply can't get married in the way they wish to get married. But any gay man can get married to a woman, and any woman to any man, in the same way that everyone else can get married."

that's not really a position. who's morality? i guess not the gay person's .

telling a gay man that he can marry a woman competely ignores that person's position on the issue - which is what you were just complaining about yourself.

they said blacks could eat at any restaurant, too - provided it was a restaurant for blacks. you don't see the comparison?

"When it comes to the Iraq, I don't mind the fact that we ousted Sadaam Hussein. However, I struggle with the knowledge that we went in under known falsities. I don't like the fact that we were lied to. But I don't think the fact that American's are dying is a terrible thing. I don't look so much at them as American soldier's dying, but as human's dying. And to that end, an American soldier, and an Iraqi civilian, are worth the same in my book. There is no distinction between them, save for the passport's they carry,."

well, you're almost there. to me, saddam being ousted has had very little positive benefits. we're still in a quagmire, tho no one bothers to call it that anymore. we're seeing billions of dollars go unaccounted for, while projects that this money was allocated to goes unfinished. their new government staged a walkout on its second day because someone's cell phone ringtone was offensive to another sect - a scuffle ensued, and they all walked out.

meanwhile - yes, kids are still dying - four today.

At least 3,525 Iraqis have been killed in war-related violence this year. These numbers include civilians, government officials, and police and security officials, and are considered only a minimum based on Associated Press reporting.

and you admit that we invaded iraq on false pretenses.

knowingly false pretenses.


i wise friend of mine once said that the middle of the road is where you get run over by trucks.

take a stance.

Martin: Your wise friend ignores the fact that someone driving down the middle of the road is in a better position to avoid those trucks and/or running the car into the ditches that are on either side of the road. These days, it also takes balls to be able to move to the left or the right depending on what the circumstances warrant. Seems to me that too many people have landed in the ditches and are unable to get out.

Thanks for that thoughtful essay, Joshua. (Though I'm still wondering why it is in "AMUSING musings"; guess I haven't figured out this Gather.com system yet.)

I think the thing that surprises me most reading the essay and the comments is that noone has yet brought up the effect of the "debate" shows that dominate the news channels and the one-sided talk shows on the radio. Jon Stewart's dead-on criticism of the debate show genre on CNN's Crossfire in '04 should be linked on this page right under Joshua's essay, in my opinion. (And, y'know, I think Tucker Carlson has actually improved a little bit since that undressing.)

The subject here, for myself anyway, is not the many issues one can debate but the civility of debate.

And if civility is such then the art of debate begins with the word 'conciliatory'. This does not mean a giving in on a debate. It can mean probing. When in competition a debate is not awarded on the right or wrong, a judement of moral issues at stake, but rather how well each party put forth their point and then backed it up.

But if one party, or both , simply aren't able to listen to the other then it is not a debate to start with. So the language of debate, and the sincerity of debate may be a big part of civility within a debate. Because if, as Paul says some land in the ditch and cannot get out you can bet your bottom dollar the following generation may find ways other than civil debate to avenge his/her ever being in the ditch in the first place. If you are in a situation like that you can often get out of it by somewhat careful driving, and that I offer you is the civility of the debate.

Martin, When it comes to morality, you're right, it's not the morality of the gay person. It's mine. My morality taints everything I do. It imbues my positions. And to abandon it when discussing anything is to abandon the very foundations of all my beliefs. I am interested in knowing why you think that I am completely ignoring the gay person's position on the issue. I don't think I am. Help me to understand.

On the issue of Iraq, I think that hiccups in the formation of a new government are to be expected. Cultures are clashing for the first time, and they have to learn to get along. And considering what happens on our own Senate and House floors, being offended by a cell phone ring-tone isn't such a far fetched government stopper. About the 3,525 Iraqis being killed since the beginning of the year, I don't accept the statistic. Here's why, if you want to say that the United States is there and it's terrible because X people are dying, then I want to hear why that is a bad thing. Yes, 3,500+ have died. But how many died under Sadaam? I've heard estimates that he killed about 3,000 innocent civilians a month for one reason or the other. I'm not sure if that is an accurate statistic or not. But if it is even close to true, then my synthesis of the data doesn't say that we have kill 3525 Iraqis. Rather, it says we have saved about 12,000 lives this year alone. If 3,525 people had died and that was the end of the story, then yes, I would agree with you. But there's an awful lot more to the story. Schools and hospitals are being built, Young Americans are risking their lives teaching Iraqis how to more safely risk theirs, and a new government is being formed. It seems to me that great sacrifices being made now may lead to great improvements later on.

Paul, good words. And I'm sorry, I've made the mistake a couple times. I try to publish to relevant groups, and sometimes I get over-zealous and publish to one too many.

I love what you say about debate shows. It's all too true. They are a bit one sided. Sometimes during a discussion I'll hear someone quote Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Wolfblitzer, and even Jay Leno (though they don't give credit). They will say it like they got their information from God himself. What I love most about these shows is that often, they will cite their source as they. They say that…It's been said by some experts…I've heard it contended. Ultimately, though, I think it our own responsibility to educate ourselves. And for those who would rather not, they live in a very sad world I think.

Benita, very true. I think you hit it on the money. I don't really care so much that people disagree with me. I just want them to tell me why they disagree with me, why I'm incorrect, and why their view is more correct. But I want them to do it intelligently and civilly. And I also want them to give me the chance to rebut, if I need to. Sometimes I enter a debate without an opinion. When I don't have enough knowledge to formulate an opinion I listen to those who do know more. I let them lobby me for their position. One can learn an awful lot by simply listening to those who know more than they do.

great article, josh - well thought out. i appreciate this. i agree with benita - no one is listening. everyone is ethnocentric and egocentric to some degree. those who practice intercultural sensitivity learn to listen more, and not judge. that is the hardest thing to do.

it is sad that we've seen it here on gather the last few weeks, too. it makes me sick.

thank you for this excellent article!

joshua - you say to a gay man, "i don't believe that it's right for a man to marry another man."

he starts to say, "but i'm in love with a m" but you stop him and say, "you can marry a woman!"

this completely ignores the gay man's point of view.

as for iraq - ... where are you getting your information?

Martin, I don't really understand how I am neglecting the gay man's argument. The gay man's argument, at least as you present it, is that love alone is a legitimate basis for marriage. We all know that that isn't true. If you apply that logic then you do get into the slippery questions of a 14 year old and a 60 year old who "love" one another. My argument is not so much one of whether a man and a man can love one another, my argument is about consistent standards. When we're talking about african American's in the debate over civil rights, we're talking about two social standards--one for whites and one for blacks. If you were black, you could be banned from buses, water fountains, restaurants, bathrooms, hotels, government, etc. Gays are not banned from buses, they can drink at the same fountains, they can eat at the same restaurants, piss in the same bathrooms, sleep at the same hotels, and even hold high positions in government. Also, just as I can marry a woman, so too can a gay man marry a woman. The social standard is consistent. A gay man can't marry another man, just as I can't marry another man. The issue isn't about being gay, it's simply about consistent standards--standards to which every single person is held, gay or straight. So if a gay man says, "I'm in love with a man," I wouldn't say "you can marry a woman." Rather, I might say something more like, "well, I'm happy for you, not all of us can find love in life. That's wonderful. But you know what? There are consequences to loving a person of the same sex. One of them being that you can't ever marry that person." And that consequence, not being able to marry someone of the same sex, is, in my opinion, a consequence I wish to maintain society-wide.

My quote on the numbers Saddam killed, I'm fairly certain were from a conservative talk show host at the beginning of the war. That's why I said I'm not sure how accurate they are, as I'm quite sure they're slightly biased. All I'm saying is I don't accept the statistic quantifying the number of deaths to this point if they are not, in some way, tied to the number's dying prewar.

It would be like someone giving me a statistic like: low income housing doesn't affect the overall price of houses. See, look at this chart. It shows that even around low income housing over X number of years house values increased 100%. But if you neglect to tell me that houses not around low-income housing had increased in value by 400% or more on average during the same time span, then statistic one isn't really valid. In this scenario, houses haven't gained 100% of their value but have lost, overall, nearly 300% of their potential value.

"Also, just as I can marry a woman, so too can a gay man marry a woman. The social standard is consistent."

"My quote on the numbers Saddam killed, I'm fairly certain were from a conservative talk show host at the beginning of the war. That's why I said I'm not sure how accurate they are"

a grasp of the facts is more important than civility in a debate.

have a nice day, josh.

In response to criticisms of your stance on gay marriage, you mention the slippery slope argument: ie, allowing gay marriage is the same as allowing, in your example, a 14 year old and a 60 year old to marry. However, the 14 year old is not a legal adult, he/she is not qualified to make that sort of decision. Gay marriage is between two consenting legal adults. I fail to see any meaningful parallel between the positions.

And if love alone isn't a legitimate basis for marriage.... what, exactly, is?

i suggest a retitle:

What ever happened to debating? Where did all the people who agree with me go?

joshua - not trying to discourage you, trying to encourage you. i hope that you've been taking some time to google around and find some real facts about what's happening in iraq, and not just more of the blather coming down the pipes. it's not a pretty picture, and we're the ones continuing to dig the hole deeper.

i hope you're taking more of a firm position on the situation within your personal circles, as well. you can be middle-of-the-road and have a stance, provided you know the facts of the situation. the only way this cash cow is going to stop grazing is if we all bring it back into the barn together. that requires a consensus on reality.

from liberals and conservatives and all in between.

"i wise friend of mine once said that the middle of the road is where you get run over by trucks. "
I suggest your friend wasnt to wise after all, in fact is your friends name Rush?

I believe that the reason that it is so difficult for people to have disagreements and discuss them with civility is that it is extremely rare to have any formal training in what it means to debate.

Most people have enough sense to know that they can't take the field with the Red Sox if they haven't had years and years -- often most of a lifetime -- of practice and training. The same principle is true everywhere you look, yet when it comes to debate, most people bring only their egos and many immutable opinions. They have no commonly agreed upon ground rules, no agreed upon structure or sense of decent behavior. They merely have the desire not to be wrong.

I spent all four years of my college education participating in CEDA competitive intercollegiate debate, and I can say for certain that it gave me the perspective and maturity to be able to engage with people -- even those with no training -- in a constructive and positive way. Not always, of course; there are those who will refuse to be treated civilly no matter what.

I feel that if our society treated formalized debating as something more than an easy way to identify the painfully nerdy, we'd see this trend that you discuss wither away. People just need some training in debate other than televised Presidential boondoggles that show us nothing more than how to avoid answering a direct question.

"wasnt to wise"

bruce ! ?

Joshua, I get the feeling that so much of your influences are from the extreme right, that perhaps your idea of just where the middle of the road is may be a tad askew....

What was the name of that book? "The heart is a little to the left." The gay marriage position is cute, but doubt anyone except someone to the far right is going to buy that argument. My personal feeling is that the government should get out of the marriage business and just have domestic partnerships -- and anyone who wanted to get married could go to their minister, priest, shaman, or whatever and go through the marriage ritual, but it would only have religious significance, not any legal significance. Perhaps that would put back more significance to the marriage ceremony and the various religions could be as picayunish as they wanted to be. Although I see now that Utah is prosecuting people for bigamy who did not even claim to be legally married. So what is a poor sole to do?

"i wise" - M??? I let that slip, I expected the same courtesy from you.

tuoche.

Martin, I appreciate your responses. Thanks a lot for allowing this discussion to happen. You said that "a grasp of the facts is more important than civility in a debate." I mostly agree. About the number of deaths is Iraq. I'm trying to invalidate it. What I am saying is simply that I cannot make a decision for or against the war based on it. I never would be able to. I think that a grasp of facts is incredibly important, but I think that one's ability to synthesize facts is where grasp is found, and synthesis requires multiple datas. If you can take a position against the war based on what you told me, then please explain why. My number is potentially incredibly inaccurate. And if anyone has a more accurate number, please post a link to wherever you got it. I'd love to know how many innocent people were killed or not killed under Sadaam.

When it comes to researching the war, I've done about as much as I can. I hear much of what you have heard, I read foreign and local papers. I try to dig into liberal and conservative blogs. And I have an awful lot of friends who are in Iraq right now. Some have come back from their tours and some are yet to go. Their reports seem to indicate that Iraq is not quite as bad as the media makes it out to be, and not quite as good as Bush says it is. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

In all honesty, I'm not asking you to agree with me. What I'm asking is that if you do disagree with me, tell me why. Not simply that I'm wrong. But I think there is one thing that must be remembered when it comes to discussions such as these, at the end of the day, after all the datas have been made known, we will likely still synthesize those things we know differently. Even if two do have a firm grasp of the facts, it does not necessarily mean that they will agree at the end the day. But to shake hands, walk away friends, and to understand that while the person may or may not agree with you now, he/she is now armed with more truth and can ruminate on it further. For some, it takes longer to work through knowledge. So give me time. Let me consider what you say, and let me take what you say and work it into my own existing knowledge. Likewise, I ask that you consider what I say, take it and work it into your own existing knowledge, and it is my hope that you will be better tooled to either hold steadfast to your beliefs or that you will, perhaps, see the falacy of what you believe. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your posts.

Liz, I think you bring up a valid criticism. I think that you are correct in saying that the parallel isn't quite as obvious as I meant it to be. There are two reasons I consider them parallel examples. First, the argument that if two people are in love that should be enough to get married is shown to be clearly a lacking argument. If that were the case then even a 14 year old and a 60 year old should be able to get married, so long as they are in love—if that were the only argument for gay marriage. All I'm saying is that the claim that because two people love one another, they should be able to get married to one another opens up a can of worms where polygamy, incest, and many other strange possibilities become perfectly acceptable and not easily argued against. I simply fear for a world where the only argument for marriage is love.

The second reason is exactly what you pointed out. If the girl is 14, and the guy is 60, then you are absolutely right, the girl is not legally able to make decisions. What we have done is taken an arbitrary age—18—and told every single person that on one magic day, you are given thousands upon thousands of responsibilities—legal and other—whether you want them or not.

I know many 14 year olds. Most of them are incredibly 14 year old-ish. But some of them are incredibly mature. I know some 14 year olds that are more mature than many 18 year olds I know. Yet, the 18 year olds get to vote, they get to drive, they can go places without a permission slip, and they can get married without their parent's consent. The law is not based on the person but the age of the person. It is consistent social standard held firm but the state. It requires that you obey its standard. You can say that the 14 year old is not a legal adult with the capacity to make such a huge life-changing decision. But are you, in all honesty, going to tell me that all 18 year olds are able to make such incredible decisions, or that 14 year olds cannot? Similarly, marriage between a man and a woman, is an incontrovertible social standard, dating back thousands of years, that needs to be applied to all. And it is. That's what I was saying about all men being allowed to marry women, and vice versa. There is not one single person barred from such an act. It is a consistent social standard that is appled to all people.

Bruce, I don't have time to listen to Rush because I'm always listening to MPR.

Adam, I think you are absolutely correct. I appreciate the response. I think that there is an art to using your words eloquently and unabrasively. The construction of possibly offensive material into neutral unoffensive verbage is a skill I have yet to learn.

David, many of my influences are on the extreme right. In fact it's my impetus for discussion. I love understanding the other side of things. I have many of my friends resort to the extreme backlash against that which they were taught. They lived in Conservative families, and now they have gone all the way to the other end. Or their parent's were liberal as hell, and now, the kid is as Conservative as can be. My goal is not to swing to the other side of things. I am interested in truth. And, like I said, everything is filtered through my Christian beliefs. My filter is something I will not change. But I believe in a logical God, and I want to understand why things are the way they are. I think that Gather members tend to be a bit to more liberal than is the general public. And I will say, I do consider myself a moderate, but I would also concede that much of what I adhere to is slightly right of exactly middle—not not very far from the middle.

I'm trying as hard as I can to get everything I can from every side. I hear enough conservative babble. I just call my parents and say evolution, or sex before marriage, immigration, or abortion. I instituted a policy for my left-leaning friends who have always told me that I am a democrat at heart. I told them that if they wanted me to understand their point of view, I would read any book or paper they gave me to read on the subject. The same applies here. If you want me to read something that you think to be phenomenal and completely unexpected, give me the title, I'll read it and send you a message letting you know what I think.

George, I think you'd be surprised how many people have actually listened and accepted my gay marriage position. If you disagree with it then let me know why. I'd love to be able to make the argument tighter or throw it out altogether.

*George, I'll respond more later. I'm about to fall asleep though.

I am not surprised that people have commented favorably. I believe the crux of the problem is having the government involved in the marriage business, because it confers rights and privileges upon married heterosexuals purely for religious purposes. On the other hand, I favor marriage for religious reasons -- since I view it as a religious ordinance. So somebody needs to bow out on the ordinance either religion or the government. I would favor keeping marriage as a religious ordinance, but abandoning its legal status in favor of some type of contract such as domestic partnerships. I would recommend that you read the Vermont Supreme Court case involving gay marriage -- it is eloquently written and reasoned.

"If you can take a position against the war based on what you told me, then please explain why."

you've admitted that you now know that you were fed a constant stream of lies in order to garner your support for invading a hapless third-world nation. since then, you've discovered that you were indeed lied to, and further - billion of dollars have gone unaccounted for, while the projects go uncompleted.

i don't care what you've been told - there is a civil war in iraq right now.

the hussein trial is a farce.

it's very likely that 100,000 innocent iraqi civilians have died since 2003.

consider the flattening of the entire city of fallujah - the worst war crime in forty years, all in an attempt to get one man. an unsuccessful attempt, at that.

so, you're asking me to explain my opposition to this war?

"I am interested in truth. And, like I said, everything is filtered through my Christian beliefs."

those two statements are in direct conflict with each other.

i think it best that i respectfully withdraw from the debate now. i'd hate to get all uncivil on you at this point.

to wit:

U.S. Secretly Backing Warlords in Somalia
By Emily Wax and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post
May 17, 2006

More than a decade after U.S. troops withdrew from Somalia following a disastrous military intervention, officials of Somalia's interim government and some U.S. analysts of Africa policy say the United States has returned to the African country, secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.

"The U.S. government funded the warlords in the recent battle in Mogadishu, there is no doubt about that," government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari told journalists by telephone from Baidoa. "This cooperation . . . only fuels further civil war."

there seems to be a theme.

George, thanks a ton. Are you talking about the 1999 case, Baker v. State? If that's the right one, then for anyone else who wants to read it, here is a link to the court decision.

Martin, thank you for your responses. I'm sorry to see you go. Just to finish up with ya, I want to say, I am not and have not been in love with the idea of invading Iraq. My contention is that I don't believe it a terrible thing that Saddam Hussein was ousted. But I still do think that you are looking at only one side of the debate. There has been an awful lot of good done too: the building of schools, hospitals, the expansion of civil rights, and a new government. Is Iraq a perfect place? I don't think so. Will it erupt into civil war? It may, I don't think it already has. But there is one fact that I don't think we can deny, we invaded Iraq, Iraq is yet unstable, and pulling out before a semblence of stability is created would be far more disastrous.

Your second contention that my statement "I am interested in truth. And, like I said, everything is filtered through my Christian beliefs" is a contradictory statement, is only true if Christianity be false. And if it's false, my life is worthless as I've lived it devoted to my faith. Truth and religion are not independent in my opinion.

"the building of schools, hospitals, the expansion of civil rights, and a new government."

again - where are you getting this information?

rush limbaugh?

"pulling out before a semblence of stability is created would be far more disastrous."

how so? when in a hole stop digging. if our presence there is what's fueling the insurgency, then you are wrong.

dead wrong.

"only true if Christianity be false. And if it's false, my life is worthless as I've lived it devoted to my faith. Truth and religion are not independent in my opinion."

ah - learning is not worthless, even if it means learning that your beliefs are a false construct.

take the invasion of iraq, for example. you came through the knowledge that you were lied to fairly unscathed. maybe it hasn't all sunk in yet, but you're getting there.

truth and religion are independent. the bible has more inconsistencies and outright contradictions than the bush administration's foreign policy.

which is saying a lot.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate panel advanced a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday as the committee chairman shouted "good riddance" to a Democrat who walked out of the tense session.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," The Senate Judiciary Chairman, Republican Arlen Specter, told Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold, who refused to participate because, he said, the meeting was not sufficiently open to the public.

"I've enjoyed your lecture too. See you later, Mr. Chairman," Feingold told the Pennsylvania senator before storming out of the private room where the meeting took place.

The testy exchange highlighted tensions over the proposal, which seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages.

The measure passed 10-8 on a party-line vote. Specter said he voted for the amendment because he thought it should be taken up by the full Senate, even though he does not back it.

no, he doesn't back it, but he knows that the full senate is republican-controlled. talk about seeing that one coming a mile away.

go, russ.

~~

howdy, joshua - i kind of got to thinking after this thread, and a couple of others... too bad you stopped contributing. we took it up here, if you're still interested!

Josh, I check in; your article was very good; the original debaters here made good points; after a while, this devolved, as it often does...that is too bad...

Martin, I haven't stopped contributing. I'm actually attempting to compile a list of articles that feature some of the better things happening in Iraq. Finding such articles from reputable sources is proving a much more difficult task than I thought. But I have a few. I'll be posting them in the next couple days here.

sweet. i know it's hard.

please include the "reputable" links for us.

ok wait... gays shouldn't married but they can adopt kids with out having a family to bring them home to??

who are we as fellow humans to say that someone can't marry someone they love...

Mandi, my argument for gay adoptions is completely unrelated to the marriage issue. My argument for gay adoptions has to do with the stability of a child's life. I would much rather a young child be stable, in the loving arms of almost anyone, rather than tossed around from foster care to foster care, or given less attention than they are due in an adoption facility. There are a lot of kids that need adopting, and there are a lot of people who haven't adopted, and yet criticize those who do.

But about gay marriage, like I said above, if love is the only argument for marriage, then I am scared of what then has to be allowed for. I have been reading Baker v. State, as per George's suggestion. And he's absolutely correct, it is a well thought out argument in support of Civil Union. In all honesty, I'm not opposed to the idea of Civil Union's being granted to gay couples. Once again, thanks George for the suggested reading.

which is, in my opinion, what causes so much online discussion to disrupt even worse than over-dinner discussions. Which is, in my opinion, what causes so much online discussion to disrupt even worse than over-dinner discussions.

"if love is the only argument for marriage, then I am scared of what then has to be allowed for."

what are the other "arguments" for marriage?

Well, I am just reviewing this whole thread, and as someone above said, it started out as a great discussion on civility in debate and conversation, and then turned into an insult-fest. Kind of proves your original point, doesn't it?
It is, as I stated earlier, a great article, and would stand very nicely without the comments. Everyone, whether right or left or gay or straight or tall or fat, can learn from it.
And that's all I have to say about that. phhhllleettttt.

Thanks Nancy

no, it started out as a wankfest, and as soon as someone with an opposing opinion came in, it became a debate, and the waffling began.

"My quote on the numbers Saddam killed, I'm fairly certain were from a conservative talk show host at the beginning of the war. That's why I said I'm not sure how accurate they are, as I'm quite sure they're slightly biased. All I'm saying is I don't accept the statistic quantifying the number of deaths to this point if they are not, in some way, tied to the number's dying prewar."

you started out with propaganda, admittedly, and yet -

still no reputable links to good news about the progress in iraq.

and to be honest - where is an insult in this entire thread? if anything, i should be the one feeling insulted.

thanks nancy, thanks kathryn, thanks maureen. for allowing me an opinion and the right to express it.

as i said - it's apparently more about "where did all the people who agree with me go?", not civility.


you do know that i'm only arguing a point, right josh? i don't think i've crossed any line of decency, in this thread or the other. if so, do tell.

Here is the first set of articles. I'll be posting in threes, I think. Just some good interesting pieces I've run into.

On November 2, 2005 the Boston Globe reports that The good news from Iraq is not fit to print By Jeff Jacoby
Summary
• this article highlights some of those things the mainstreamers only glazed over. Or those things that were lost in the mix deep inside the inner pages of many articles.
Notable quotes:
• "The 2,000th fatality was neither more nor less meaningful than the 1,999 that preceded it. But if anything makes the death toll remarkable, it is how historically low it is"
• "the nation's leading news outlets harp on the negative and pessemistic, consistently underplaying all that is going right in Iraq"
• "fixation on the number of troops who have died outweighs…interest in the cause for which those fallen heroes fought"

On April 11, 2004 The Leaf Chronicle reports that More than 300 schools rebuilt, renovated By Pfc. Thomas Day, 40th PAD
Summary
• Many schools have been built and renovated by the 101st Air division.
Notable quotes:
• "Schools in need of simple supplies and new windows, or a complete renovation, have received a helping hand from 101st Airborne Division CERP funds and NGOs working with the soldiers"
• " 'In the past they had mud houses for schools…Now they have brick buildings.' "
• "The students are eager to go back, especially those who are going to new, renovated schools"

On April 29, 2004 CNN reports that More Iraqis Optimistic, Dislike US
Summary
• This poll is old, however, when it was taken, it does show a good amount about the Iraqi people's sentiment towards the US. Though they are happy about Hussein's ouster, and most are convinced of his guilt, they still, on the whole, do not love the US. However, in a related article written the day before, CNN writes that 61 percent of respondents said that "Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships"

On September 5, 2003 World Vision reports some 'Good news' for children of western Iraq
Summary
• The story of World Vision's progress at one school. They were able to provide running water, paint walls, and do rewiring. The school was incredibly grateful.
Notable quotes:
• "For the past four months, World Vision has been working with the community to rehabilitate the 12 primary and secondary schools"
• "No running water, no proper toilet facilities. Children going to the local mosque or going in the streets. Large cracks zigzagging across classroom walls, paint flaking and electrical fittings missing"

On May 25, 2004 KSL-TV Eyewitness NEWS reports the Good News From Out of Iraq
Watch the actual report
Summary
• KSL interviews some soldiers who have come home.
Notable quotes:
• "THE POSITIVE THINGS THE SOLDIERS ARE DOING GET PUSHED OFF TO THE WAYSIDE"
• "I LIVE IN PEACE KNOWING THERE WERE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS GOING ON."
• "Regardless of your politics...he says we should be proud of the work the troops have done"

In 2003 the White House released Pictures from Iraq
Summary
• Just some pictures.

this is really pitiful, joshua.

really. don't bother with more.

september, 2003? i can't believe you're posting this stuff as good news from iraq.

the most recent is from nov, 2005, jeff jacoby scratching his head and wondering why no one thought that the "election" in iraq meant a hill of beans to anyone other than the guys in washington who are trying to sell this as a success.

check out today's headlines about the government iraq, j.

i hate to think how much time you spent putting all that together...

thirty seconds; today's news from iraq.


in this post, joshua, you said, "I too am an Evangelical." you then went on to describe how you invite opinions different from your own, and how you essay out your position to review for flaws.

you've admitted that this war is based on falsities. you know that mr. bush is an evangelical, who says god told him to invade iraq.

you see that it's a complete farce.

essay it out.

Everyday few days, Omar writes in his blog as an Iraqi
Summary
• A wonderful Blog written by an Iraqi.
Notable quotes:
• "Was it the right decision to remove Saddam?

I say yes, and that's what most Iraqis said and still say even if they became divided over what happened later…the truth is that virtually no one wants Saddam back.

I will just ignore the weepers, whiners, teenagers and half educated naïve people and their silly rallies as I don't want to waste time on people who can do nothing but blindly oppose everything without thinking.
I will ignore them and focus on the more important goals we want to reach here…" [This is from his March 20, 2006 entry]

On September 27, 2004 The Opinion Journal ran Australian Blogger, Arthur Chrenkoff's piece br>* Just as a sidenote, if you want to get to Chrenkoff's blog it's at http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com

Spirit of America
Summary
• An Organization devoted to extending the goodwill of the American people to assist those advancing freedom, democracy and peace abroad

Healing Iraq Blog
Summary
• Another wonderful Blog written by an Iraqi. This blog, however, has is not so positive in his latest entries. I am including it because it is really a well-written set of articles, and a really interesting read from the perspective of an insider.

The White House The Untouchable Chief of BaghdadBy Eric M. Johnson
Summary
• A good article with a different take on some of the war's more well-known articles.

Joshua, I recommend a wonderful book that will provide some light on the issue of civility and civic virtue. _Bowling Alone_, by Robert Putnam. Fabulous read, complete with gobs of quantitative and qualitative data for weenies like me. Woo hoo!

And now for some more current updates:

Fast Facts: Iraq's National Unity Government

Talabani: Kidnappings, Killings of Iraqis Must Stop

National Review Online's 12 Month Archive: Articles featuring Good News from Iraq

USAID's progress reports

A CRS Report for Congress
on U.S. Assistance to Women in Afghanistan
and Iraq

Other CRS reports

US Embassy in Baghdad's website

And that's what I've got for now. Take a look at them if you guys get the chance. I think you'll see some surprising things. I especially recommend those blogs by Iraqi citizens. They are incredibly enlightening. A neat insight into the everyday workings and life of an Iraqi nationals.

Martin,
"the building of schools, hospitals, the expansion of civil rights, and a new government...again - where are you getting this information? rush limbaugh?"

You asked me how it is I can make such claims. Just because an article about a school being built is 3 years old, it doesn't make it any less true that the school was built. Regardless, I was compiling. There is more than just those old articles. I had them archived from oldest to newest, and posted them as such. And still, like I said, I have not really come to a conclusion as to how I feel about the war as a whole. But whether or not the war is good or bad is not so much what we are dealing with anymore. We are dealing with the fact that we are in Iraq. I really hope you take a look at some of this stuff with an open mind. You needn't concede anything. But I think you'll see that there are, amidst some bad, many good things happening in Iraq.

Ernie, thanks for the title. I just purchased a copy from Amazon. So it should arrive in the next couple of days. I'm excited to read it.

joshua - there are not many good things happening in iraq. more delusional thinking.

here's your own cited blogger:

Friday, May 19, 2006
On nothing in particular...

I think most of you noticed that ITM is getting updated with new entries less frequently compared to earlier times and there are plenty of reasons behind this reduced activity, some I'd like to share and others I prefer to keep for myself. I honestly do not know which is which so I'm going to let my fingers take the lead and type whatever they like to type, so, this is going to be rather a rambling post…

First of all we're having a hard time getting reliable electricity and internet access, as you could tell from Mohammed's latest post, thus we're getting fewer hours of online time and this of course is not enabling us to read enough material that is needed to know what's going on and connect events and news.

There's also our satellite TV receiver which died all of a sudden (maybe the news it was forced to show was the cause of death!).

I'm also not getting my newspapers regularly enough for a number of reasons, so we're technically not receiving enough material to be able to blog in the way we wish we were especially when it comes to things happening outside Baghdad.

Some might wonder how someone living in a place as eventful as Baghdad would face difficulty choosing a story to write about. Yes Baghdad is full of events, almost no day passes without breaking news or big stories about the government, the al-Qaeda, security, economy, etc, etc.

Of course most of headlines bring bad news and every once in a while we find some good news or potentially good news but regardless of that, they all can be considered as good raw material for blogging but the thing is that we're growing numb over news whether good or bad.

I very well realize that this numbness is dangerous but I can't help it, I'm surrounded by these news, events and incidents. I see them on TV, hear them on the radio, read them-and write about them-on the web and chat about them with friends, family and workmates and occasionally witness them first-hand. And this is leading me to the threshold where they stop to be interesting but I'm trying hard to keep a distance from this threshold or at least slow down its arrival and that's why I'm still writing till this moment.

On the other hand many of my friends, relatives or the people I know have either left Iraq or are planning to do so, actually instant messaging and emails have long ago become the only way I stay in touch with my friends.

"I'm going to take my family to Syria next month and will be staying there for a year or two until things calm down" or "I've been granted admission to a university in the UK" or "my uncle found a job for me in Egypt and I'm leaving next week"…

These are examples of what I get to hear from people I know and it's getting more and more frequent lately.

Not all people have the resources or the urgent need to leave Iraq; so they chose to be refugees inside Iraq; I have friends who left Baghdad and went to Najaf or Kurdistan seeking the nearest place where safety can be found.

One friend told me the other day that "Iraq is no longer a place for civilians like us, let politicians, militias and soldiers settle their accounts but I am leaving indefinitely". I don't know what to tell these people; I can't advise them to stay and risk their lives with all the violence happening around and I feel sorry they are leaving, sorry for them and for the country; it's never easy for them to leave the place where they were born and had lived their entire life to go start from zero in a place where they'll be total strangers and at it's not possible to build a country without people but at the same time, you can't help your country when you are dead or living in fear all the time.

This is the kind of dilemma unfortunately many Iraqis are facing these days and time is a very important factor here and Iraqi's are not sure whether it's on their side or on the enemy's…some people tell me they don't want to quit now that they endured so much and been through a lot. The other day I was with some friends at home and the subject eventually surfaced "let's just wait for another six months, I'm sure things will improve by then" one friend said and I nodded in agreement "I'm not willing to take the risk, what if I get killed or kidnapped tomorrow or next month!? I'm leaving Iraq to live somewhere else until I believe it's safe to return, we live only once guys!" and I nodded in agreement too.

Both opinions make a lot of sense and I could never say the first friend was a coward since he's still living through what I and the other friend are living through.

I can see the light at the end of the tunnel and so do many people but they wonder if the tunnel is going to collapse before we reach its end.

good stuff. thanks for the link.

arthur chrenkoff!! lol - you must be pulling my leg now.

usaid - propaganda.

InterPress Service - jan 27, 2006

Remaking USAID for a Permanent War on Terror?
by Bill Berkowitz

OAKLAND, California, Jan 27 (IPS) - In a series of developments -- some more publicised than others -- the United States Agency for International
Development, or USAID, has been undergoing a transformation that will more closely align its activities with the State Department and the Pentagon.

These changes could threaten the agency's original emphasis of concentrating on long-term social and economic assistance projects, and steer it toward greater involvement in more immediate political and military concerns, such as Pres. George W. Bush's war on terror.

On Jan. 18, the Bush administration nominated Randall Tobias to serve both
as the nation's first director of foreign assistance and as the head of
USAID, the principal government agency that administers economic and
humanitarian assistance worldwide.

The new position at the State Department will oversee all U.S. foreign aid
programmes. (Tobias is slated to replace Andrew Natsios, the former head of USAID who recently resigned for a teaching post at Georgetown University.)

Tobias will also be charged with the "develop[ment of] a coordinated [federal] foreign assistance strategy, including ... five-year country-specific assistance strategies and annual country-specific assistance operational plans", according to a department statement.

Since 2003, Randall Tobias, a major donor to the Republican Party, has been serving as coordinator of the Office of Global AIDS. Some longtime AIDS activists have criticised his leadership as HIV/AIDS czar, claiming that he has emphasised abstinence-only HIV prevention programmes, and hasn't been an advocate of the use of generic drugs for HIV/AIDS treatment in developing countries.

Subject to Senate approval, Tobias will have a rank equivalent to deputy
secretary of state, reporting directly to Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, who, the Financial Times recently reported, "is driving what she calls
'transformational diplomacy' with the aim of changing the world".

link

the ends don't justify the means, joshua. war crimes. pure and simple.

don't defend them.

Law and Disorder

Misjudgments Marred U.S. Plans for Iraqi Police
May 21, 2006

As chaos swept Iraq after the American invasion in 2003, the Pentagon began its effort to rebuild the Iraqi police with a mere dozen advisers. Overmatched from the start, one was sent to train a 4,000-officer unit to guard power plants and other utilities. A second to advise 500 commanders in Baghdad. Another to organize a border patrol for the entire country.

Three years later, the police are a battered and dysfunctional force that has helped bring Iraq to the brink of civil war. Police units stand accused of operating death squads for powerful political groups or simple profit. Citizens, deeply distrustful of the force, are setting up their own neighborhood security squads. Killings of police officers are rampant, with at least 547 slain this year, roughly as many as Iraqi and American soldiers combined, records show.

today's NYT.

you say they built a school three years ago. not in baghdad, they didn't.

$2 trillion.

profiteering.

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who, the Financial Times recently reported, "is driving what she calls 'transformational diplomacy' with the aim of changing the world."

that's what i'm afraid of.

Bravo. But the hope is not to be fulfilled. It is not politial, it is a decline in the culture. No more I disagree but will fight for your right to say it
here.

HL:

Where did the civility go? START WITH YOURSELF. You immediately showed your own bias and negative attitude with your statement: "Both were conjuring up data that they had clearly pulled from their butt regions and both sounded like complete ignoramuses."

So I have no doubt that when you "supposedly" responded to this "ignoramuses" nicely, you were HARDLY civil. Most likely, you were condescending, patronizing, and well-deserving of being cut off in the manner you described.

If you are trying to encourage civil debate, the first place to start would be your own attitude. Don't automatically dismiss someone's opinion just because you disagree with the references they are bringing up. Fact is, if you had done *your* research, you would have seen that many scientists DO believe we are in a period of global warming, while some disagree. Some scientists, in fact, believe that global warming is a problem, but that it's caused by something other than human intervention (sun cycles, for example).

You are clearly NOT being civil yourself if you immediately discount someone's opinion and assume their scientific references were pulled out of their butts.

So if you want civil debate, maybe you should start with yourself first.

Joshua, I do do believe you are serious about what you say on civil debate, but I think you're not quite honest with yourself: there are possible conclusion that you will never come to, no matter how convincing the other side's argument is. You in fact even admit this when you refer to your faith, but you don't seem to see the significance of this.

Your friend who interrupted you was possibly rude and didn't make a good argument, but sometimes that sort of thing happens because all the arguments have been said before, countless times, back and forth. Furthermore, some things are not a matter of opinion. Greenland's capital is located at 64°10′N 53°41′W no matter who's looking at the map, at its ice sheets are thinning no matter whose scientists are measuring them. But if you want more grassroots proof, ask any old person who lives in a mountain region where the snow line was when they were children. No matter how conservative they are, they'll point to somewhere lower than where it is now. We are indeed in a warming period, whether we like it or not. It's another thing to prove that our burning of fossil fuels is causing it, but the problem is there, and it's huge, even if it's happening due to other, natural causes.

Your opinion on gay marriage seems firm and likely impossible to change, but you need to be aware that your arguments are not as valid as you think. You mention black people not being able to go to restaurants in the past, but you omit a more relevant analogy: that in the same past in most US states black and white people were not allowed to marry *each other*. They were of course perfectly able to marry other people of their own race, so supporters of "anti-miscegenation" laws claimed there was no discrimination, just like you claim now for gay folks. They also made the same slippery slope argument about incest, pedophilia and polygamy (and of course bestiality, which you had the good taste to leave out). Were those good arguments for a ban on interracial marriage?

Of course, same-sex marriage is different, because the people are, well, of the same sex. So the question is: what is wrong with it? Which, in a society that's built on "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" means: does it hurt anybody (else) if two consenting adults of the same sex marry, and if so, how? That's the question that needs to be answered. If not, you have all the right to be unhappy about them marrying, since you believe it's wrong based on your religious faith, but you have no right to prevent them from doing so any more than I would have the right to demand a ban on, say, WWF wrestling because I don't like it.

How quickly we forget the debate before the war. The whole world was against it. Personally I thought it had already been decided and they were just looking for an excuse to give the go ahead. There is more to this war than just saving the Iraqi people. I have no confidence in the military or the government telling the truth, maybe 20% of what we hear it is true.

I have skipped the appended comments as I wish to reply to your article rather than the comments, I will peruse the comments as soon as I post this.

I agree with you primary contention completely. The lack of considered civil discourse both on-line and in the wider community is a worrying trend.
Perhaps we should be agitating to have Aristotelian logic forms taught as a basic course in high schools?
I often glance at an article posted in this place and agree with much of the substance but wince at the logic forms employed - in particular you see modus ponens and modus tonens everywhere. Also people skipping the process of developing a logical construct and instead simply resorting to bland affirmations
It is so disheartening. Three thousand years of rhetorical development entirely cast aside in favor of regurgitating ideological pap?
Anyone reading this who doesn't understand the Latin terms used above should type them into a search engine and read and consider.
All the true and false logic forms have been defined and described. These are not variables that change relative to an individual's current passion. Your argument structure is either true or false. There are no grey areas in logical rhetorical forms.
Thanks so much for raising an important issue mate, although I feel obliged to point out that I believe you made a mistake in outlining your personal opinions as an exemplar - I will hazard a guess that when I scroll up the page and examine the many comments - four out of five will be directed at refuting these exemplars rather than in considering the substance of your article.
Peace.

Mark, thanks for the comment. I enjoy the sarchasm too. I think that your summary of why liberals feel like cutting me off is true of the other side as well. I mean, if you look at Conservatives, when they refer to Clinton, they are apt to give him little credit for much of anything. Rather, they pretend like he was a terrible, disgusting, President, who led this country down a fallopian tube of sin (a phrase coined by one of my good friends). My call is simply for civility. I would rather that both sides simply allow the other side to voice their opinion, present their data, and understand the whole of a matter rather than just one side of it.

Harold, I think you may be right.

Your comment makes me think of parliament. I'm not sure why, but it does.

I did my best not to cloud my comment with any of my incredibly leftist views - I inhabit parks somewhere a little left of Marx on most matters - just ask the buld of the community.
keep thinking clearly and i look forward to clashing swords sometime.
I might spend an hour or so writing a short piece about Aristotelian logic forms.
PS - I was genuinely surprised at the mostly on-topic responses your article provoked - my last comment was proved to be without substance and I am soo happy to be proved wrong.

You raise an important issue. It is a shame there is not more intelligent political dialogue with people listening to each other.

I am coming from a liberal perspective. I will honestly tell you that I think the problem is largely because right-wing talk shows like Rush and right-wing politicians like Bush and right-wing "news" channels like Fox have been spewing a logic-free, soundbyte oriented, "I'm right and you're wrong and plus, you have no values" philosophy for so long that us liberals finally got tired of trying to hold a one-sided rational conversation and gave up trying to even talk to the right. On top of that, I'm sorry if you disagree, but I'm convinced that anyone still defending Bush is simply in denial on many fronts. Too much is wrong with his record as president for his presidency to still be logically defensible. Now, I realize I will probably get flamed for this, but it's no fun to try to have a rational conversation with someone who isn't rational and that's where many of us liberals have given up trying. I'm not talking about you, Joshua. Your piece was thoughtful, and I appreciate that.

On your specific comment about gay marriage. I disagree that gays can get married in the same way other people can get married. There is one extremely important way in which this is not true. Other people can get married to the people they are in love with. Gays cannot. I think everyone deserves the right to marry for love, if they are so lucky as to find it.

Stephanie, I don't really know what to say. I'm not sure I would be able to convince you that this was in fact the way it happened. But I'll try.

My summation that they were conjuring up data that "they had clearly pulled from their butt regions," was not a product of my own biases or attitude. Both of them were making up data, and both of them were accusing the other of making up data. The argument sprang out of nothing, and they were throwing out numbers, percentages as though they had just spent the last 10 months researching the subject. They were refuting the other's data by employing ad hominums. I'm not saying the two of them are stupid, and I promise you there is no evidence to support a claim that these two are stupid. One of them went to college when he was 16, and is currently working on his Masters in Physics. The other is also very smart, though he followed a more usual academic route. The problem was, they were making up crap, and they both knew it. They weren't citing sources. They were saying things like, "it's been said," "they say," "most scientists think…" etc. I don't think the two of them ignoramuses. I give them an awful lot of credit. It's for that very reason that I wrote this article. Because two people who I not only hold in high esteem know to be incredibly intellectual, argued as though they were dumb. And both of them knew it. Yet they pushed it, making up data, to ensure victory in a pointless battle.

In this article I do not make my own opinions about global warming known. Just like during their argument. I don't intend to make them known either. All I will say is that I was not going to tell the liberal that he was wrong outright. I intended to present evidence and let him ruminate upon it. If I had entered the argument, I would have done something similar with the conservative. I think your assumptions that I have a negative attitude, or that I was hardly civil, condescending, patronizing, and the like, are hard conclusions to come to. Especially here, in a place where we cannot see the other person, get to know them closely, understand them emotionally, or intellectually it becomes hard to tell someone what they did, how they felt, what their intentions were, what their attitudes are, or make assumptions of any sort. So, while I appreciate your input, I think your searing remarks are a bit unwarranted.

"In this article I do not make my own opinions about global warming known. Just like during their argument. I don't intend to make them known either. All I will say is that I was not going to tell the liberal that he was wrong outright. I intended to present evidence and let him ruminate upon it. "

I'm not going to assume that I know to what degree you disagreed with the guy who was trying to tell you that global warming is a known fact, but your comments indicate you disagreed with that somewhat. Here's one reason liberals may feel it's hard to have a rational conversation with conservatives anymore. Conservatives often persist in debating against known facts. Every scientist who still can get a job at an accredited institution seems to agree that global warming is happening. This is not an issue for debate anymore. What can be debated is what to do about it.

We liberals would usually like to have a civil debate about what to do about certain problems, such as global warming, voting machines that can be easily hacked, saving our civil liberties that are more and more endangered, and many others. But we can't have that conversation with conservatives, because they persist in denying that these problems exist.

Please understand that from a liberal perspective, conservatives have gotten to be a bit like the Roman Emperor Nero who is said to have set Rome on fire and then fiddled while it burned (according to Bugs Bunny's silly song, anyway.) Conservative policies have us worried that the human species (and many others) won't survive for much longer, yet all conservatives want to do is fiddle about trying to make rules about who can marry who. Who cares? As long as conservatives are so busy trying to destroy the world, can't you at least let the gays have their fun while they're still alive? Believe me, it's hard to have the patience to speak civilly with someone who you believe is contributing to making the end times a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Aniko, I think your explication is wonderfully stated. And, I think, we agree with one another more than you think. I completely agree with your opening paragraph, there are definitely possible conclusions that I will never change. I am a believer in absolutes. There are certain things that just are. That was exactly what I was trying to say when I mentioned my faith, though, I suppose, it wasn't quite as clear as that. But when there is something brought up that is against what I believe, I do want to hear the disagreement. I want to understand why they a person disagrees. And when two sides are in polar opposition, I enjoy simply listening. Usually two people on either end of the spectrum are using one-sided data and by sitting and listening, a person can learn what both sides have to say, and combine both side's data and come to a well-informed conclusion.

When it comes to global warming, like I said, I have yet to make my opinion known. But I'm not in disagreement with you. I think it is clear that we are in a warmer period than we were in 10 years ago.

Pertaining to gay marriage, I think you'd be surprised how much my opinion has molded. Slowly, but it has changed with each new added criticism it has to deal with. I'm going to respond to your contentions as best I can, as I've not yet had to deal with a comparison of gay marriage to interracial marriage. I'll have to think about that one. For now I will only respond to your criticism of my argument that gay marriage will lead to incest, pedophilia, polygamy, etc, (believe it or not, there is a reason other than its grotesqueness, that I left out bestiality, though the tastelessness of the argument would have been enough), is a slight mischaracterization of what I stated. I think it is good thing that I clarify the distinction I'm trying to make. Which is to say, I don't think that gay marriage would be the end of the world, nor do I believe it would lead to any of the things you mentioned.

As you said, perhaps the liberal was cutting me off because everything has already been said. In the argument for or against gay marriage, this is often how I feel. And when it comes to logical reasoning and application to the matter, I think that both sides are using the same arguments back and forth. The reason I called it a slippery slope argument is because that is precisely the logical fallacy to which I was referring. But, I wasn't referring to gay marriage itself. I was referring to the argument that love between two people is enough to justify gay marriage. I'm simply asking that a new argument is used, because frankly, if love between two is enough to justify marriage, then love between two must be enough to justify any marriage. And suddenly, the slippery slope does apply. It's that very reason I was asking others to refute my statement showing logical gaps, rather than simply saying I was wrong. And I don't see the logic in the statement, "because we love each other we should be allowed to get married." That's really not logic at all, and that's why it so easily gives to the slippery slope.

Now to your questions specifically:
What is wrong with it?
• Well, that depends. I'm sorry to answer your question with a question, but I'm going to have to, because, I think that getting our definitions straight is an important point from which to start. What do you see as the ultimate purpose of marriage?

"In a society that's built on "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" means: does it hurt anybody (else) if two consenting adults of the same sex marry, and if so, how?"
• My answer here is highly dependent on the first answer. But I do find it interesting that the question, does it hurt anybody else, be asked in conjunction with the "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" quote. I don't necessarily agree that this is the ultimate question that needs answering. I don't know whether or not it hurts anybody else is important. I'll resort to an extreme example. If I crawl into a Tiger's cage at the zoo, and I get eaten, it doesn't really hurt anyone else. But, my guess is that purposefully jumping into a tiger's cage may land a 20 year old, like myself, in jail if the authorities get to me before the tiger does. Nonetheless, I do think the question warrants a bit further attention by me. So, I'll get back to you. I will try to formulate a good coherent answer.

I do appreciate your last statement:

"you have all the right to be unhappy about them marrying, since you believe it's wrong based on your religious faith, but you have no right to prevent them from doing so any more than I would have the right to demand a ban on, say, WWF wrestling because I don't like it."

I want you all to know. I have never gone to a same-sex marriage protest, and I don't intend to do so. I don't think that gay marriage will lead to the anti-Christ or anything of that sort. I'm not actively pursuing the creation of public policy to ban it outright. I think you should know, I really am searching for a socially responsible answer. Perhaps, Aniko, you are right, my personal opinion on the matter may never change. But as I said earlier, I wonder about America's social conscience. While I wish everyone in America believed the way I did (it would be much easier) the truth of it is many don't. I am, with myself, constantly embattled between my own personal beliefs, what is socially conscionable, and whether my own personal beliefs are socially conscionable. I am a Christian, and I desire that everyone could see the truth of Christianity, nonetheless, I am not, and never will be, an advocate of a law requiring everyone accept it's veracity as I have. And I wonder sometimes, what of my beliefs can I deem acceptable as applicable to all society, and what of my beliefs must be more internal. It's a struggle to know, and that's why I love these discussions. But this article isn't so much about who can change whose belief. That was part of it, but only a small part. The article is simply asking that when things are discussed, it is my hope that at the end, when everyone has stated their beliefs, opinions, facts, etc, they can turn around, walk away, let the other person believe whatever they will (we don't know if what we said affected them, some people take a bit longer to synthesize), and remain friends.