I have already posted about Respectable Journalism here, but Skeptics convinced me to lay out all the cans of worms for your consideration. I consider myself a liberal (IE progressive, not Liberal/Coalition) and that will always colour my views. However, what Skeptic lawyers said really struck home.
In a very abbreviated form, this is a version of an argument once made by German philosopher Jürgen Habermas: if one can’t make a case reasonably, accepting the possibility of defeat, then while one should be permitted free speech, there is no requirement that anyone else has to pay attention. In other words, make your case reasonably and be heard (if not always heeded), or make your case unreasonably and be laughed at (as well as definitively not heeded).
So here are my cases. Feel free to skip ahead to your chosen poison and start flaming. I stand by these views as my own, but I am always willing to listen to 'rational' arguments. I should also note that these viewpoints aren't the same as when I started university; I have been convinced to modify some of my more... unique views.
The following series of posts (links below) will hopefully delineate my views, and I invite you to agree or disagree. Any arguments you think I haven't included or considered, please feel free to 'rationally' argue your point. If it is a good, rational point, I will include it, even if I don't agree with it.
GAY MARRIAGE: "I don't know"
ABORTION: "A Woman's choice"
ISRAEL/PALESTINE: "What the hell is going on?"
Any other suggestions for hot-topics?