It seems that a lot of threads degrade into “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, with no certain answer ever emerging. Smart people can argue anything with facility, so are we only battling egos here?
Of asses to be, I’d rather be a smart-ass than a dumb-one. 
If a certain answer could be given to the type of questions raised here, this forum would be called “General Questions”.
In any case, it’s valuable. Both people who are posting and people who are reading these threads are learning a lot about the issues debated.
Contentiousness and egocentrism do not require any particular level of intelligence. I seriously doubt that it is a superabundance of smarts on the SDMB that causes the lack of consensus.
People are frequently contrary, many like to argue ( almost all GD denizens do ) and most are pretty stubborn about what they believe, even when ( or sometimes especially when ) they are presented with “superor” evidence. Meanwhile hijacking is almost intrinsic to debates. One tries to minimize it, but it will always be there.
Debates aren’t for resolution, necessarily, though it’s a nice surprise if you ever get there. They are more often for just bouncing ideas around. Often the best thing you can hope for is some insight into the flaws and strengths of your own arguments. Maybe dispel some ignorance, but it is just as likely someone will disagree and think you’re spreading it instead ;).
The best thing a debate can do is provide the best arguments for both sides of an issue. This naturally does not form a consensus, but that’s not the point.
A debate can help form a consensus, but on its own it is designed to show the best arguments for each side of an issue.
There are smart people on SDMB?
Some, of course. Not as many as advertised, of course.
Certainty is overrated, and in complex questions, often merely a sign of rash judgment.
Great Debates has changed my mind before, for what that’s worth.
Mind sharing about what?
The Iraq war, among other things.
Yes. Me. It amazes me how many threads I get into where my points are not responded to. It seem like around here, if the question is to uncomfortable, the topic changes and salient points are never addressed.
Is this meant to be irony? :rolleyes:
Well, I think starting a thread asking if people on the SDMB are too smart for their own good is a pretty good example of “yes”.
Also, if you wanted a topic about the value of Obama’s economic policy, perhaps you should not have started it by promoting Reagan’s economic policy and alleging that no other president has any clue about economics, when both of those points are obviously not going to be universally accepted. Try making a concise OP that itself sticks to the points you want to be addressed and people will respond in kind.
Or you can just make a sarcastic topic because people didn’t directly respond to the parts of your posts that you wanted them to.
There are lots of smart people around here, all of whom will be willing to tell you at the drop of a hat just how smart they are. Digonies the Cynic, RTFirefly, E1vislives, Redfury, gonzomax, Der Trihs…the list goes on and they’ll tell you how smart they are until the cows come home. Me? I’m an idiot. An educated idiot, but an idiot all the same. The difference is that I realize that and have some common sense, while recognizing that while my knowledge is vast, my ignorance is legion. The posters I’ve mentioned above believe the exact opposite, which is why they are so consistently able to post opinions without basis in fact.
Often that’s how it seems to me. Some people simply must have the last word, so threads will go on and on with no end in sight.
Yes. It’s just a curse we have to bear. All we can do is sigh in jealousy as the inhabitants of other message boards knuckle-walk on by.
There are a lot of smart people on this board. The smartest rarely post.
Seriously. Ask just about anything you can think of regarding chemistry, physics, higher level math, electronics, biology, music, medicine, art, etc., and you will likely get a highly informed answer within minutes.
Other than that though, you’ll rarely hear from those people.
The rest of us – those who argue politics and social ideology and pit things – are, IMO, above average in intelligence, but we use that intelligence to argue things that can never be settled through verbal argument.
So we aren’t as smart as the first group.
P.S. - Reagan had lots more clues than people around here like to give him credit for. He was probably the most effective president – economically, politically, internationally and inspirationally – of my lifetime, and he didn’t acheive all that by accident: the man knew what he was doing!
P.P.S. - (See what I mean?)
According to you. According to me he was a disaster, and a disgusting human being to boot.