I talk politics a lot, and have never had much trouble ‘disagreeing without being disagreeable.’

The trouble I run into though is this… its not an Olberman vs. O’Reilley debate. I sometimes find myself 15 minutes into a conversation, and the fellow I’m debating won’t accept NPR, Meet the Press, the Washington Post, or the NY Times as legitimate sources. It won’t do to give a lecture on the basic tenets of journalism, point out that ‘the facts have a liberal bias’ and tear down Fox news (yet again).

I guess what I’m saying is that if you want to debate like a gentleman, make sure you’re debating a gentleman, else just walk away.

I think that in a formal debate, such as a political debate, your methodology is absolutely perfect. It would allow you to actually understand how the person came to his/her belief and also if they really did believe it deeply it would come through. Also it would give you time to question your own position, especially if you respect the other party. This keeps you everyone from having to come up with some sort of long winded song and dance that the audience knows is a not correct. There is never anyone who knows everything about everything and your knowledge base is created by your life experiences.

I am withholding my political views from this post, because I don’t want it clouding my own judgment. All I will say is this: I think there are too many attack ads, and they just degrade the ones who release them.

I don’t think “why” and “how” questions are necessarily more provocative than “what” questions. “What” can form some pretty hurtful statements as well e.g. “what on earth makes you think that!”.