Not a scholarly argument, but an argument that involved premises leading to conclusions. You guys helped me out by showing that my premises were not correct. This is not scholarship, it is democratic discourse. It is what Plato advocates in his dialogues, which portray Socrates showing people the folly of their incorrect positions. Everyone learns. Just like people learned from my incorrect premises. In fact the best way to learn is to be incorrect and have your position challenged. You will not forget that lesson.
The difference is, I appreciate learning in this way, when others either get defensive or abusive when their positions are challenged, or they see fault in other's position. They would rather go Maddow and O'Reilly and attack people's character than engage in a civilized argument.
This is the problem with the Internet, it often is seen as a place where people can engage in dialogue in a democratic fashion about the issues pertinent to a civil society. Unfortunately, as Plato argued in his dialogues, society is all too often full of individuals who would most often rather say "na, na, nana, na," than engage in a civil exchange of ideas.
