There are many points I agree with in the opening post, but let me pick the one point I completely disagree with and so be a role model for what I read to be meant in that point:

I think we should actually seek the weak points in the others' arguments and address particularly these. Maybe that comes from my training as a scientist, but in each theory (or set of thoughts, or ideas) the weak points are the most interesting for in them we can see whether the ideas are really good or not. We have to stretch a thought to its limits to see how far it goes and whether it is good in extreme situations. We can learn most from our thoughts being exposed to extreme tests.

I thoroughly agree, McGrath, that to learn our own week points in a discussion is extremely valuable. But for that we need the others who single out these weak points and shows us where our ideas may (or may not) have problems.

I am not irritated at all by those who go for the weak points, I'm irritated by those who think they as persons are attacked when one of their arguments is attacked. And I'm irritated by those, often the same ones, who cannot admit in clear words they have been wrong in one particular point (of may they have made) when they perceive the 'opposition' to have a different (political, or whatever) leaning in that particular discussion.

Wolfgang