Well, I would say that not be civil is worse. That shouldn't be tolerated.
As for having radically different opinions, I guess it depends.
Occasionally, someone does say something that may seem out of left field, but does actually has some merit once they explain their reasoning. If someone can jusitify their claim that is fine. They are really contributing something.
However, if other people point out why they don't think that person is right, the first person should either address that point or stop talking about it. In other words, in the Duane Bobick scenario, if people pointed out his bad losses and his not so impressive wins, his flaws as a fighter etc. the first person should either admit that they were wrong (of course most of us humans don't like to do that) or atleast just drop it.
What really bothers me is when someone makes a claim, someone else counters it, and the first person just keeps making that claim as if no one ever countered it.
For example, lets say someone says that Jack Dempsey never beat anyone good. I then counter with something like: Well he beat Miske,Fulton,Brennan etc.
To me person the first person has 3 legitimate choices:
A. Concede that yes, Dempsey did beat some good fighters.
B. Just drop the subject.
C. Say why you don't think Miske,Fulton, and Brennan etc. weren't good fighters.
However, what frequently happens is that the first person simply ignores that their point has been contested and just keeps saying the same thing over and over as if it wasn't contested.
One person saying "Demspey didn't beat anyone one good"
The second person saying "Dempsey did beat Fulton,Miske, and Brennan"
First person says again "Dempsey never beat anyone good".
That isn't a real discussion.
I personally have a lot of respect for people that don't do this. What really hurts this Forum is people saying the same old tired lines that have been countered and they just ignore it. That isn't a real discussion.
I wouldn't say it's uncivil, but I would say it's not being courteous. In my opinion, this hurts the forum as much as being being uncivil.
I will say that occasionally I don't always follow this rule. There are a few people (the usual suspects) who I know can't engage in a real discussion, so I ignore them if they challenge something I said. However, if someone says the exact same thing I will address their point.
Of course we won't all agree on everything and it would boring if we did.
I remember when I was fairly new to this Forum I once had a long debate with
boxscribe about Charley Burley. I really didn't think he was that great. (I really hadn't thought enough about Burley. This is a mistake I try to avoud. I try not to talk about something that I haven't tought enough about.)
Anyway, we went back and forth for quite awhile. I'm sure he wasn't happy with someone criticizing Burley; he himself wrote a book on Burley!
However he was very couteous. He never called me a name or say I didn't know anything about boxing or anything like that. He would address my points, and occasionally concede one of them. Enough of his points were logical, that by the end, I was almost a convert.
I still don't rate him as high as he does, but I rate him higher than I once did.
It's too bad, that he doesn't post here any longer. Maybe he got tired of the way some members conduct themselves.
8) 
