I know I might appear to be quite demanding by expecting intelligent responses to this, but here's the question nevertheless.

What's so great about aiming at the lowest common denominator? Especially when it comes to arguing?

Let me explain: In most discussions/flamewars I read lately, there was this common characteristic that stood out: at some point, participants would stop tackling the argument and go against the arguing party instead.

Hell, some of BYOND's "greatest arguers" seem to regularly use that on a more subtle level, and people tend fall in their trap. This is completely idiotic, as most of the time, there was no substance in the attack, and it simply leads the "victim" out of the argument, thus making the attacker's argument look better than it really is.

However, don't those people realize how valid (or how invalid) this type of argument really is?

So I ask again: what's so great about aiming at the lowest common denominator when arguing?

Try it...

You know what private parts and opinions have in common? When you display them for the world to see, you're gonna get your ass handed to ya!

Why am I saying this? Because of a phenomenon that's as old as the internet itself: post opinion, receive flamewar.

Just had that thought when browsing through blogs, and seeing how it's impossible for people to just "agree to disagree".