I just want to add this in. It's something I posted in another thread which I feel is germane to this issue.

I did make an edit, wherein I changed the name "Bob" to "Frfnrgle The Defiler" as to not further offend any Bobs or friends of Bob.

I want to add one last thing to this:

We human beings are creatures with egos. Unfortunately, ego lies to us. Ego tells us we're right when we're wrong. Ego tells us that someone is attacking us when they're calling out points or statements we have made. Ego tells us that when someone disagrees with us, it is a personal affront and we have to shut that shit down, most rikki-tik, in order to save face. Ego tells us to win, no matter what.

I believe that, quote often, people take contradictory evidence, questioning, requests for evidence or salient points against their claims as personal attacks. These things are not attacks at all, though it's easy to let ego, that little sidewinding prick, make us think they are.

I would like to suggest everyone look at the latin we use in debate to describe an attack against the presenter:

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem translates to "to the man" or, more snowflake appropriate, "to the person".

If you feel like someone is attacking or ridiculing YOU, ask yourself: Is that comment aimed at me or is it aimed at the content of my argument?

Also, are they remarking about a behavior or about you, directly?

Here's an example:

Frfnrgle The Defiler says the sky is plaid because [insert clearly faulty "evidence" here (we ALL know the sky isn't plaid]
I say "that's the biggest load of crap I've ever had mashed into my eyeballs"

Is that "to the person"? Did I call Frfnrgle The Defiler a load of crap or did I call Frfnrgle The Defiler's argument a load of crap?

So now let's say Frfnrgle The Defiler establishes a pattern of making really bad assertions:

The sky is plaid
The killer bunny exists
His all original 1973 VW beetle can do a 7 second quarter mile
Lightning is how aliens abduct people for anal probing
Coke and Pepsi taste the same

For each of these assertions, the "evidence" he presents is full-on laughable. I won't make up examples, let's just agree that his "evidence" isn't evidence at all...It's just really, really bad.

If I say to Frfnrgle The Defiler "You have a long history of making completely asinine assertions which are backed up with nothing but assumptions, presuppositions and horse-apples"...

Is that "to the person"? Was I attacking Frfnrgle The Defiler or was I commenting on Frfnrgle The Defiler's behavior? Even though it is (technically) subjective opinion, it's still not aimed at Frfnrgle The Defiler.

Now, if I say "Jesus, monkey balls, Frfnrgle The Defiler, you're a fucking idiot!"...

THAT is "to the person" and even though it's unacceptable, it's an area in which we will all slip from time to time. I, for one, ask that if I do slip, the offended party call me out on it. Point out that I have used an ad hominem attack and if that's true, I will stand like a man, take my medicine and accept that I was a bonehead.

Just please make sure it's really ad hominem.