I think we may also be experiencing a bit of an illogical syllogism here. We aren't that unique in this respect given the current state of public discourse, at least in the US currently.

Asking for one's opinion on an issue, to my thinking, is a way to become informed. Yes, it can lead to counterpoint and point etc., but these efforts in subject refinement are still just that; a process which seeks more clarity. Again, in my thinking, this is the nature of 'debate'. If in asking one's opinion is merely an initiation of the act to refute said opinion wihtout benefit of learning from the opinion, it is merely an arguement. This second form of conversation does not allow for synthesis of ideas because of its structure and limitations. In the end with this, one finds him or her self in full support of the opinion he or she began with, with nothing to show for the effort except for a talley of 'jabs'.

In sharing opinions is debate, one would hope that the participants allow time and discernment of proposed points to inform their position and also allow for a possible reinterpretation. In an arguement, opinions simply clash.

I think debate is a method to inform. There is no amount of complete 'mind changing' that can happen externally. It is an internal process, if it occurs at all. Believing that simply stating one's opinion--over and over, to the point of rasing both the volume and hyperbole, changes nothing.

So, I think the OP here was not neccessarily looking for debate to occur, but by posing the question as a way to begin an arguement, we've come through umpteen pages of spicker and spat on this thread.

Personally, I was fine with Jock's initial statements showing what he thought in response to the question--not 'fine' as in I agreed with them, but fine as far as understanding clearly what he said and why he said it. I was also the same flavor of 'fine' with the first rebuttle which suggested another view. Since then, I have read repeated versions of the same positions.

In the end, perhaps because of my limited view, I see no attempt at debate, but real action toward arguement.

Jock's perfectly acceptable point of 'no' is clear. Other's perfectly acceptable point of 'yes' is clear. Other than that, I haven't been able to gather more from this exchange. Perhaps I've missed everything here?