>>Yes, you're right, we have those extremist, ignorant people too.
>... and...
>>Now in the debate of this threat I did aim this at certain US members up here, and I agree you might have a point that those arrogant, ignorant and flatout dumb statements are not exclusively to US americans.
>
>See, this is what I tried to show you: You use words like ignorant, arrogant and dumb, only to derogate and disqualify your opponents. Uninvolved co-readers will evaluate such words as attempts to show how superior you think you are to your opponents.
>
>>Now, I have a hard time to see what on earth justifies to bomb down Iran.
>
>The task for you was to provide facts and arguments why that is a bad idea. Or 'invite' the opponent to come with facts and arguments why it is a good idea. A simple statement that 'we should do this or that' is not good enough in a debate. It is merely an expression of a wish, and that's not enough to win the debate. Show the opponent (and the co-readers) that invalid facts and arguments are used. And formulate your own facts and arguments. Do not merely state that the other is stupid. Use facts and arguments.
>
>I know it's the more difficult way to go, but it's also the more correct way.

It's way more than just 'difficult', Peter. Whenever someone points up 'facts' to back an argument, generally around here those facts are simply dismissed out of hand as the work of the ignorant and biased "left/right" [choose one]. "Facts" can only be used in a debate in which the principals are tolerant and open minded to views that may not be their own. I see far too little of that in many of these threads, frankly.