If folks can't see what is as plain as the nose on their face, ie "self-evident," all debate is probably useless anyhow. You're arguing with a man born blind about the nature of color.
I don’t agree with your assertion that everyone is looking for 100% agreement, and if they don’t get that 100% agreement, then the discussion is done.
If someone makes ten statements, each one cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Every statement bears on every other statement, even if they are not logically related.
I may listen to Ron Paul and agree with 90% of what he says. But I won’t vote for him on the basis of that 10% that I disagree with, because that 10% disagreement reveals a basic and fundamental flaw in my eyes. Take the following example of three statements someone might make about what is wrong with America:
1.) The government spends too much.
2.) Taxes are too high.
3.) We aren’t doing enough to combat global warming.
Even though I disagree with only 33%, that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with the other 67%. If I am not interested in discussing the 67% percent, that doesn’t mean I am rejecting 100% of the premise. It means I am rejecting 33% of it.
People support various causes or candidates for various reasons. While I might or might not support someone even if they believe global warming, I won’t support someone if they think we are not paying enough taxes. However, you don’t have to look very far to see someone who might support someone who believes the inverse.
I think you are simply wrong in the conclusion you draw about contemporary debate of issues.
Codeflier wrote:
“The reactions to your list demonstrate all that is wrong with contemporary debate of issues. Everyone is looking for 100% agreement without discussion. If people disagree on just one topic - that’s it! Finished! No more discussion.”
Excellent point well said.