Me, I like a good argument.
The left yearns for the good old days when they could waltz into local radio stations and log complaints that the stations were not fa-a-a-a-a-air and threatening the station owners' FCC licenses.
In "Republic.com," Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.
No surprise that papers like the nyt gave the book rave reviews. I queried amazon.com once and found that the book was a best seller at locales near major universities.
On a local talk station Sunstein was asked, "What about liberal sites? Should they be forced to be fair?"
"What?" he replied, puzzled. Then added, "oh.. uh, yes I suppose so." Like it had never occurred to him that his feeeeeeeeeeelings could be considered unfa-a-a-a-a-air.
I enjoy one as well, unfortunately it appears to be a disappearing art. Too many people fail to use the brains that God gave them, and they reduce themselves to namecalling when they can't make a good argument. Granted we all do it at some point in the heat of things, but there are some people that constantly lower themselves to personal attacks - it's the only way they know how to debate/argue.
That's why I stay away from the usenet groups. I prefer unmoderated forums, but that invites the people who are least equipped to engage in a debate and who have no intention of looking at both sides. I remember seeing JR and others before FR, posting on usenet, and when I heard about FR, I was glad to see it.
Thankfully, FR is free of that. Occasionally you'll see somebody at a loss for words and sink to that level (they'll question your patriotism if they don't like what your saying about this or that, or imply that you are a liberal, or whatever) but for the most part the debates/arguments are great. I think some people really come away having looked at both sides.