Not if you present the clearer, more rational argument. I mean, some people in the "audience" may have already made up their mind but there are those who have come to listen and that is the group you are presenting your argument to every time. Now, picture you are a member of that neutral audience, which kind of argument is going to sway you the one that is made up of vitriol or the one that is calm, rational and lays itself out point by point in a respectful manner?

I think the answer there is clear.

See, the reason why I see that as unproductive thinking is because, at the base of them, those monstrous opinions inevitably boil down to, " The qualities of my group are better than groups x,y and z and if you disagree then you are persecuting me". Now they are usually slightly more nuanced than that but that's the gist of them, and that is rightfully awful but when you go up against that kind of terribleness with your own brand of terrible you are actually being counter productive. For one, although it feels good to shout them down, it doesn't disprove what they are saying, in fact it only gives them more ammo, because now they can say, "See, I told you so!". Secondly, it's counter to your own argument which at it's base in these kinds of conversations boils down to, "If you were a member of group Y you'd want the same opportunities and respect that you currently have as a member of group X, so we should both be treated the same." If your message is that X and Y should be equal but you then turn around and make a member of group X unequal by telling him to sit down and shut up you are giving evidence of the opposite of your appeal with out meaning to. And finally, as I mentioned above, you go against that silent audience by presenting a vitriolic response rather than a rational one.

There's an easy way to point out one's intelectual dishonesty, that is when someone challenges you to prove that something doesn't exist. A true and honest argumment will always be the other way around. Or else, let's just forget about rethorics and start civil wars everywhere!

1. Just more evidence planted by Satan.
2. Photoshopped. Just like the moon landing.
3. It may not be factually correct, but t feels right, so we'll run with it anyway.

Seriously, this happens every day, and it allows those loonies to attract more believers. Giving them a platform and arguing with them like they are not deranged makes them more respectable than they have a right to be.

I don't see respect as fawning. The idea that you should treat others as you yourself would like to be treated, while certainly simple, has always seemed a self explanatory virtue. I wouldn't want to be shouted down for expressing myself, so why do the same to others? I've yet to see a reason for how doing that accomplishes anything other than perhaps making you "feel good".

Is it really going to do that though? Or would it give them greater conviction that they are right? 

Many express those kinds of horrid opinions in public, it's why politicians on the right can do the same and not be punished. And there are plenty of people shouting hate in return and trying to shame the other side but the issue persists so again does it accomplish anything? I don't see any evidence that such a plan works at all.

The discussion really isn't for those hardliners on the other side though. The first lesson of debating is that you are not trying to convince your opposite number but rather the "audience". That's not to say it's impossible to convince someone who holds the opposing opinion to your own with the same passion as you do yours, it is possible to do just that( Dupont for instance fully convinced me that digital comics are cheaper to produce than print for instance) but that isn't the goal. 


Think of it as a court case, as the defendant you aren't trying to convince the prosecutor that you are innocent but rather you are attempting to convince the jury. How effective would the lawyer be if his sole tactic was to shame the other lawyer? Would that convince the jury his argument was correct? 

Most likely not, but a clear, rational, argument would.

And you don't have to tip toe around ideas you disagree with either, you just have to be polite and rational. Now the opposing side may see that as just as inflammatory as if you had been insulting but again their reaction isn't all that important; all that matters is presenting the best version of your argument  that you can to the others who are "watching". Now some of those in the "audience" may react the same way, it's true, but there will undoubtedly be others that listen and that is who the debate must focus on. And that's a tactic that can be shown to work, just look at the recent Gallup Poll on Creationists; while it's true that it still found that just under half the US population still believed in some for of divine creation instead of the Big Bang and Evolution the segment of the population that did was stagnant and aging while the opposite was true of the science backed view which has grown ten percent in the last decade and favored among the younger population. It's education that drives that kind of growth and education is best when it strives for our better instincts rather than our baser ones.