Is it possible for anyone to make a point in this forum using a rational argument rather than an emotional one?

No. Here. Pull my finger.

Mr. Spock,

One cannot dismiss the fact that most answers are offered on talking points or themes commonly dispersed in order to besmirch and/or defame those they consider the opposition, but understand that this forum is fertile ground for people seeking entertainment value. There are serious, thoughtful answers contributed at times, and an observer will notice that they tend to be colored based upon how the question is framed. Even when a serious question is asked, it is often met with an abundance of rather immature and denigrating answers, unfortunately, by partisans of another political hue, as you suggest.

There are some, but far too few, who don't engage in all of the silliness and rancor. I am admittedly not among them, and it is perhaps to my detriment first in terms of character and secondly in carrying sufficient weight considering the value attributed to the 'social debate', which is really involving serious issues with ramifications that are equally as significant to society as a whole. I would like to believe, however, that even the stereotyping and 'cheap shots' serve a purpose beyond the comedic value, which leads more to the point of your question.

Rationality and emotions are not compatible bedfellows; and this is the basis of the contentions of conservatives who argue that liberals function on emotion whereas the conservative approach is to reason things out in terms more closely associated with outcome, devoid of 'excuses'. Liberals, of course, generally stand on the foundation that without compassion and understanding instructing rationale regarding how resolve is constructed, the underlying problems of the individual cannot be addressed, for there are legitimate reasons why a person may find his or herself disadvantaged in the walk of life. Despite the seeming contrast, the two share a common viewpoint in acceptance that people can (and will) be disadvantaged in life. The divide exists in which social model or approach offers the most prospect of resolve.

The truth is that both fail miserably in keeping emotions separated from rationality and logic in the final analysis, and it is because what they present seems so logical (to them) that they cannot fend off the frustration associated with their vain attempts to demonstrate it to the 'other side', and this frustration is then vented by going into attack mode. For their arguments and contentions are so convincing (again - to them) that there is no logical reason why defeat is not conceded, and so they conclude that ignorance must be operative in the event.

Perhaps everyone should heed wise advice, but of course, we won't ... what fun is that?

That advice being: Never argue with an idiot; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Logic is for you, Mr. Spock, and it only 'works' in the cinema.

Logic is my life. This is the reason that I answer VERY FEW questions here since it seems that logic becomes lost in this strange little world known as Yahoo. Most of the people that I experience are bringing up facts from their own mind and expect me to just believe them since they are saying it.

I have assured my friends that when I say something to them they can be sure that I have TONS of facts to back it up and I do but so many out here have heard something from a friend and they believe it without researching to see if it is really true or not. I, on the other hand, never repeat anything unless I have investigated it fully and KNOW it to be true.

It has to do with one's education. I was taught by Jesuits and they have a very different way of teaching people. You can either work the formulation to it's full extent and provide an answer or you can't. It's very simple ... if you have the facts to back up your premiss.

I must give you a star for this while I can before the "thoughtless ones" scream and have this deleted.

Good question.

I AM

Dartagnon

Actually I am not really on any side but I do lean slightly left at times. I'm one of those people who would rather see the war stop but if it doesn't then just kill all the enemy and their families. So waht am I. I would never vote for Bush or McCain but I might vote for Ron Paul. I might also vote for someone like Jerry Brown. I believe in abortion as a right and in fact I think the more abortions the better. On the other hand, I do believe in gun ownership but not to excess. I think people should pay taxes and wages for the poor should be higher but I believe in smaller government if possible. I believe the contractors who screwed over the country in Iraq should see jail time. Some should see jail time for murder. At the same time I think the soldiers who fight for this country should be treated better than they are now. But soldiers who murder deserve a sentence equal to that anyone in the US would get for a murder. I believe we shouldn't torture people unless we see it fit that others torture our soldiers using the same techniques. I believe most politicians are crooks and that pensions for politicians and presidents especially shouldn't be very generous. They serve just as a soldier would.

OK, let's have a go.

In the UK we have basically five parties o chose to be our next government, ie: Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem, UKIP, BNP.

First one Labour (our government) has done nothing for our country or it's people, and has sold out our country to the EU.

Next Conservatives, Same as above, only different name.

Next Lib-Dem, No policy, middle of road party, flip flop too much.

Next UKIP, A party with strong views,ie: UK out of EU, Stop immigration for five years, to sort it out, etc, very good agenda.

Next BNP, This party has some similar to UKIP's, like immigration, only they want to end all immigration, their policies seam to be too extreme.

I think logically the UKIP stand out ahead of the rest, and being the fourth largest party, (and growing), have a very good chance.

I think what has happened is what I like to refer to as, "The Dumbing of America". What is being learned in the classrooms today will make our future generations marginal McDonald employees at best.

Young people will agree with their 'leaders' who are left leaning. It's 'cool' to bash anyone/anything that actually STANDS for what is good & right. Of course, I'm not talking about ALL young people, there are a few exceptions to the rule.

EXAMPLE: michelob86

It all depends how rational the answerer is, what the qustion is, for instance if you're offending my party it's kinda difficult to defend it logically and without getting all worked up... it also depends on how you put it etc... you know stuff like this

Okay, Spock, give Scotty a hand with the transporter....

my Democrat brother-in-regulation, while seeing Republicans interior the information, has an automated reaction of "previous white racist ***-holes"; which you need to comprehend why some human beings have complication seeing those "rational arguments" which you're pertaining to

Am I the only person that detects the irony in ''Wanninoni''s response in relation to the actual question?

Every now and then you'll see a good logical answer. But it's rare.