Tonguetied and Twisted.
A debate will traverse a line, through what results as a philosophy, given that an assertion can be placed on fact. All the method, bravado and quotes are simply graffitti outside the walls of the fact.

Hogtied and Carrelled.
Free thinking has been given the false accolade of Philosophy. It is incorrect to accept that an individual will self assert free thinking into the field of Philosophy, without first sifting it through debate.

Language and Meaning.
Skeptisism can be discerned from miss-interpretation, just as meaning can be lost across the medium barriers. Any links to the above, can make for a great read, a heated arguement or an excellent debate.

Now if I could just take my own advice, I would say this is my method. Alas, I am deliberate in my short list off refference and undecided in the true worth of my choice in words. I should have been the rampaging punk, rather than the lethargic hippy.

I want a bumper-sticker that says this.

Very well put

It is one thing to rely on facts, and this can be done in many situations, but entirely another when, under other more unusual conditions, the fact of the matter is unclear. In the latter case, depending on the horizon from which one is considering the instance, one must be able to find a way to isolate its static presence from everything that adheres to it. It may be that one can never say enough about a fact to exhaust its being, but one must be able to "say the truth" about it as far as one can go.

Very often, philosophical debates are about such facts and their meaning, or whether the rules and procedures ascertaining the facts in question are genuinely applicable. Even if there be agreement about such facts, another area of disputation can arise about how these fit---or not---into the universals we employ to help describe them, that is, methodological arguments.

Isn't what counts here a certain openness, a intellect of good will ready to at least consider a different perspective? One may, of course, be unconvinced about a position; but by understanding it in a sympathetic way, does this not deepen or expand our own position when it is included?

Absolutely! This is, to me, the whole point of philosophical discourse and reasoning. Humility tends to lack amongst the more adamant and as such, opportunities for expanding perspective lie dead - shot down by arrogant mindsets.

I fall into this trap, I know I do. To me the only thing I can do is keep trying to stay open... but I'll say again; humility is the key. An honest desire to understand one another.

One day, I can only hope I'll practice all I preach...

The trick is to try and catch yourself about to get angry with the other.
Then stop.
This is the subconscious mind telling you that you have missed something in what they are saying. You may not be sure what it is, but its there.

Back off, take a step back into unqualified humility and just allow that you have missed something. Keeping you inner eye on your ego is the best way to perceive what the other is trying to get at that you have not seen.

I think perception is more important then mere intellect. Because its just more subtely unnoticed. Intellect can be trained; even automated. Perception requires constant vigilance of the spirit. A much tougher discipline. A year of fine art, is worth more than 2 years of philosophy, from the point of view of philosophy. Keeping the eye open for the hints of untied threads can yield marvelous dividends.