I don't know why I try to share facts with people if they're going to dismiss them out of habit.  as a self-proclaimed intellectual, I should know better.  I DO know better, but there's a part of me that is always optimistic that sufficient evidence will in fact change people's opinions.  

And there's a difference between opinion and fact.  my OPINION on abortion is very much positive (I'm a huge fan of population control), butI don't pretend that it's a FACT that the world needs more abortions.  my OPINION is that Euthanasia is occasionally acceptable, but it's certainly not a fact that euthanasia should be legal.  It's my OPINION that neutering your pets is a horrible thing to do, but it's not a FACT, in fact, I know there are medical benefits to it.  it's my OPINION that declawing is a disgusting thing to do, but it's a FACT that the cat doesn't really notice much of a change.  There are some situations where there are no facts to push an issue in one direction, but the ones I listed are. 

Circumcision, sexuality, nature, skin color, climate change, Evolution, guns, all of those things are undeniable facts, and yet people STILL insist on arguing.  I didn't say anything about gun control, I said "Guns are designed to kill", and they are.  Sure, some are modified to be nonlethal (which is awesome, I love nonlethal), but their original use was to kill.  I should have clarified that I was refering to INFANTILE circumcision, not circumcision as a whole, and the other stuff is just fact. 

If going with the scientific consensus isn't the act of an intellectual, then what is?  Shall we just make up theories for shits and giggles? We're not hippies, we're not republicans, we're not treating this as spirituality, we can't just pick and chose what we want to believe. It would be ignorant to go against the consensus unless we ourselves had done tonnes of research, but I guarantee nobody else in this thread (or on this forum) is educated enough to have the credentials to challenge scientific consensus, not even I. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733850/pdf/v030p00259.pdf

Circumcision: Even the supposed benefits are hotly debated and have not been conclusively proven.  (paraphrased, of course.)  This document also states that a pro-circumcision argument is that it's socially acceptable, but it also does the counterpoint stating that without imperative medical need, circumcision can be seen as a human right's violation, and that was the most recent report I could find.  all the 'pro-circumcision' articles I could find were from the 90's or earlier, and we've come a long way since then.

Going with scientific conesus is the act of a middle ground adopter.   Sure it's better then being a luddite, but a true intellectual is someone who stays on the cutting edge of research, looks at a research project and still has questions beyond it,  wonders about the implications on other things, and realizes that often times in science, things that are considered 100% right, are often wrong... and keeps that in mind.

Having a scientific high ground no doubt should be considered a giant advantage, but pretending it means you are 100% right for sure.  Is foolish.

100% right in the context of the arguement?  You can make that arguement sure, but an undeniable truth is a claim that goes against the very nature of science and of an intellectual.  The farthest an intellectual should go, and that scientists do go in their actual journal articles, is to say that such a thing is "Highly probable based on the available data."   They teach you to phrase your worlds like that in a Scientific Methods class for a reason.  It's also why the scientific method requires you start out with the opinion that in fact.... you are wrong.  Humility is the most important virtue of a scientist.

Again, while i agree with you on circumsicion, I think one would be stupid to call it bad as an undeiable truth. 

As for later articles.  The CDC's pros and cons are all 2000 and later more or less.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

For your opinions and supporting them in an arguement, it's about changing the moral opinion of the person you are argueing about. Sway what they think is morally right or wrong, this is hard to argue against. In the case of factual 'world problems', these opinions come from the influence of politics and religion. Scienfic fact will always have to try to battle the very convincing arguement of 'Yeah but they/it said...'.

Most guns... aren't made to kill people, some are made to kill animals, Some handguns are made to wound people for self defense... but most are made for sport shooting. 

The only guns specifically designed to kill are ones modified to take special amunition or your bigger combat arms.   Handguns CAN kill, but aren't primarily designed for it.  While hunting rifles and shotguns were obviously not made.

They're like Bows.  Most are made for practice or hunting and target practice, though you could kill a guy with one.

Just press quote on the original post.

Here, did it for you:

Runa216 said:

It's always hard to debate with people online because it's becoming increasingly clear that there's no such thing as right or wrong, just opinions. Debating online really is like the special olympics, even if you win...well, you know how it ends. The point is, there seems to be an increasingly prevalent belief that you should respect someone's opinions, no matter how outlandish or nonsensical they are. Of course, this all started with Religion, in my mind (sorry, it makes no sense, and to date nobody has been able to present compelling evidence to the contrary), but it has spread to pretty much every debate point or hot topic on the internet, even ones that have conclusive scientific proof supporting one side and completely destroying the other.

Don't get me wrong, on some hot button topics there legitimately ARE two sides to the coin. Stuff like Abortion and Euthanasia certainly have compelling arguments on either side of the coin that should be discussed at length, I even think that religion has its place in a philosophy class, but there are plenty of things that have right answers and wrong answers, and no longer need to be discussed. There are such things as truths, and frankly they need to be addressed, and those who disagree with them can be conveniently ignored and disregarded.

Circumcision is a barbaric act and has no medical benefits.

Your sexuality is not a choice.

Forcing yourself to do or be something that is against your nature is harmful.

Your skin color does not dictate your actions.

Evolution is conclusively proven and has been witnessed.

Climate Change is most certainly a thing and needs to be addressed.

Guns are tools that are specifically designed to kill.

I could go on, but those are some of the more immediate hot spots that are on my mind a lot lately, things I've actually argued with people over. There are people out there so mentally deprived that they actually think you can chose your sexuality, or that people are 'pretending to be gay to piss us off.' There are actually people out there who honestly think that a biological phenomenon that's been studied, documented, and recreated in a lab is just a liberal conspiracy. There are people out there that honestly believe that circumcision is healthier for the baby in spite of it being proven to not be the case (in addition to permanently desensitizing the dude's junk). Some of these things aren't well known facts, and it often finds some digging to show it,but there's no reason that, when presented with conclusive evidence, people should dismiss it just because it doesn't coincide with their beliefs or perceptions.

There was a time in my life where I'd go on 5000 word rants filled with logically explained viewpoints, plenty of supporting evidence, and compelling arguments every time I encountered someone saying something stupid, but the more I did it, the more futile it became. As time went on, and as my effort to cleanse the world of ignorance continued, I kind of gave up. I still like pointing out flaws in people's logic from time to time, but I don't bother with the well researched retorts or the cited examples anymore because the collective stupidity of the internet has ruined my hope for humanity. It's becoming increasingly clear that knowledge and enlightenment scares some people, and they will combat it with all their might when an opposing viewpoint is presented.

Some people say I'm sociopathic, that I'm dangerous or hateful or spiteful...well, you would be too if you were surrounded by idiots that outnumbered you and had more control over the world than you. The problem isn't that these people are stupid, or that the ignorant are aggressive in their desire to remain ignorant, it's that the smart, civilized people have pretty much thrown up their hands and collectively given up, conceding that “We all are entitled to our opinions”, like it would be a crime to try and beat the stupid out of the masses.

Well, I have a problem with this. I mean, I don't WANT to be confrontational, I don't WANT to be that guy who thinks he knows everything all the time and I certainly don't want to be the kind of person who seems to get a glint in his eye when he proves someone wrong or shoves his opinion down the throats of others, but I'm finding it harder and harder to live in a world where the ignorant thrive and the intelligent are expected to keep to themselves. I know Sheldon Cooper is a fictional character in a sitcom, but I feel more and more like him every day; there's nothing worse than just wanting to share your knowledge with others and having them dismiss you or basically tell you they don't want to hear it. Is there anything in this world more disappointing than people who don't want to learn?

It's not a matter of malice or arrogance to me, it's a simple matter of right and wrong; it's not a matter of opinion, sometimes a fact is a fact, and there's nothing you can do to argue it. When someone tells me “Evolution is a myth”, that's not a matter of opinion, that's a factual error. I know everyone hates the guy who corrects you or assumes himself superior for whatever reason, but when you're wrong you're wrong; it's not fair to be treated like shit just because you want to help make the world a better place by sharing knowledge.

This is precisely why I've taken to simply dismissing those who are wrong. I recently got into a pretty heated argument (It's not a debate, it stopped being a debate before I even showed up) about whether homosexuality was a choice or if it was harmful, and after a few pages of interacting with the various people in the thread, getting an idea of what people thought or where people stood, I basically stood up on the soap box and publicly informed those who felt that homosexuality was a choice and that it was harmful that they were wrong, they were bigoted, they were ignorant, and they had no right discussing a matter they clearly had no knowledge about. Naturally, I was turned into the target, and ALL of the people in the thread turned on me because I dared to assume the mantle of superiority, like my 'opinion' was worth more than theirs, and that I had no right to be judgemental.

If this was a matter of opinion, I would be an arrogant, rude, horrible person for assuming my side was right and theirs was wrong. If we were discussing music and someone said “Justin Bieber is awesome, Queen sucks”, I'd disagree with them, but I certainly wouldn't tell them they were wrong. Well, I might, but if I did, I'd substantiate my claim with proof, but I certainly wouldn't be bothered by people not liking Queen and liking Justin Bieber, as we are all entitled to our own opinions. However, when it comes to important, socially poignant fodder like gender roles and scientific progress, I certainly don't think it's acceptable to push an ignorant belief as fact, or passing it off as opinion and crying 'censorship' or 'persecution' when you're told you're wrong.

I used to be great at debating and discussing hot topics, but now I don't bother. I'd love to take the time to explain to each one of these people why they're wrong and sit them down to have an intellectual intervention, but all I'd get is aggression and continued ignorance. The art of the debate is dead, stupidity reigns supreme, and we now live in a world where any ill-conceived theory or stance can be masked as an opinion and shielded by the guise of free speech. Well I'm sorry people, but there often are clearly defined rights and wrongs, and sometimes the truth needs to be told even if a few people can't handle it or are offended by it.

This is why I've taken such a strong stance against religion in the past few years. While I do certainly feel that the idea at its core is rather silly and completely without scientific merit, if people wish to believe in a God or Gods, I truly do think everyone has a right to do that. However, the second that belief starts to invade places it doesn't belong such as our senate houses or classrooms, it should be the job of the intellectually responsible to ensure that those viewpoints that are not substantiated or adequately supported by evidence are squashed and thrown to the curb to rot with the rest of the trash.

Sometimes, aggression is necessary. Sadly, the ones smart enough to know better are also the ones civilized enough to not cause a riot. Well, my friends, sometimes you gotta fight for what's right, passivity does not breed progression.  

I agree with only half of this statement, while the part where you said handguns "can kill" but they are used more for "self defense" I absolutely disagree with.  If handguns were made to just wound people, they wouldn't have been made to kill so easily.  Handguns are a powerful weapon, made with the intent to kill.  A more worthy self defense is the martial arts, which can be used to kill people but for a good few of the martial arts it is meant for self defense.  Those who use handguns for self defense are only making the problem worse.