If there's one thing I've noticed about the debates here in Vehicular Cycling, it's that posts are not always completely objective. It's usually more apparent when reading opposing views.
As a result, while good points are often made on opposing sides, each side can also turn a blind eye to the validity of the opposing side's arguments. It's one thing to hold your ground, but to argue with every position presented in an opposing argument is unrealisitic. Even the most untenable position is not completely wrong, and even the strongest argument is not without it's weaknesses. Nobody is always wrong, nor is anyone always right.
How is it then that we argue with people simply because they are on the opposing side, regardless of the validity of what they say? Or that we support the arguments of people who we think are "on our side," yet ignore the things they say that are not supportable?
And we nit-pick.
Isn't it time we lost our fear of admitting that the other side (whatever that might be) is sometimes right? And that "our side" is sometimes wrong?
Can we find objective truth in these debates? I don't want to bring up "science," for what we are doing is not science, it's debate. But in science, for example, researchers don't seek to prove what they already believe, they seek to believe what they can prove.
Can we open our minds to learn from each other and arrive at some common beliefs we can all support? What's the harm in admitting agreement in whatever area we do agree on?