Civilized Debate?

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument
William G. McAdoo (1863-1941)

As a teenager and a young adult, I took great relish in debating those who had radically different opinions from me, particularly the bigoted of all stripes and extreme fundamentalists. My debating strategy was always to use the most conservative examples to prove a liberal point and the most liberal examples to prove a conservative point. That is, I knew I could get a conservative person to more readily consider a liberal viewpoint if I were quoting Barry Goldwater, for example, in favor of the issue, than if I told them what Ted Kennedy had to say on the same matter, and vice versa.

Sometimes, I had lively, worthwhile and respectful discussions, but all too often there were those with viewpoints so extreme that it was like "arguing with a signpost", to use my father's terminology. It was almost as if they'd stuck their fingers in their ears and went "lalalalalala" as I talked.

I can remember my father telling me "You can't deal with ignorance" when I'd get frustrated by such fruitless debates. As an adult, I think of this as "You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent".

As I read political sites all over the internet, both blogs and message boards, I'm struck by the lack of civilized debate among those with radically differing opinions. The usual pattern is that once someone discerns that the other person does not agree with them and continues to defend their own position, however respectfully, that their responses degenerate into emotional ad hominem attacks ("all you whiny liberals hate America", for example), which is NEVER constructive.

I don't get it. Is respect only for those with whom you agree? Does having a differing opinion on a particular subject mean that the person is worthless and has forfeited any and all considerations of common courtesy?

I think not.

So far as politics goes, I think those who takes a strong interest all want what's good for their country and the world, even if they have radically opposing ideas on how to accomplish this goal and how "good" should be defined.

Those with strong political opinions would do well to remember this and that if we can't get along with all sorts of people at the small level, how can we on the larger level? Skilled, mature debaters can abhor a person's opinion without abhorring the person holding the opinion.

Thoughts?