> Therefore, it's probably impossible to keep the heightened emotions out of debate without strict rules on content and participation. History proves this, lon

> Therefore, it's probably impossible to keep the heightened emotions out of debate without strict rules on content and participation. History proves this, long before the advent of digital fora. Consider the elaborate, stilted parliamentary procedure and its variants. While it's quite burdensome, it's also considered a total necessity in many of the great deliberatory bodies that stand today. Even with such a ceremonious structure, fist fights in national parliaments are by no means a thing of the past. I think that this is because more than persuasion, humans are emotionally driven to create in-groups and out-groups, and only by divorcing emotion as much as possible can any real reasoning and discussion take place. If there's one thing that profanity and vulgarity is actually good at, it's forming an in-group, which is antithetical to good discussion.