Is the criticism justifiable?

I have seen many a forum etc where a debater is treated poorly.I've been studying social science and have started thinking about whether the remarks made by debaters are justified or justifiable. Not necessarily in that order.Would anyone in this site be willing to answer a short survey about the attitudes held by both groups of debaters towards their own and each others viewpoint and towards each other. From this survey I plan to draw up a profile of debaters and compare the findings.Would Admin be willing to allow this study?I'm hoping this posting is completly unbiased. Any apparent or actual bias is not meant, I assure you, and this is not a disclaimer. It's meant as reassurrance.

OLT stands for Origin of Life Viewpoint. This is to ensure that nobody feels the other side is being given preferenceOLH stands for Origin of Life viewpoint HolderIt says that at the top of the survey. I checked then cut and pasted.

I've seen typos in many publications but I don't go spreading suspicions about the integrity of the author. It's just a typo. Thank you for pointing it out. You misunderstood Q16 and have no idea of why I put it so please don't sabotage it.

Ok ok, i made a typo. For OLT read OLV.

Whatever

No you don't know my agenda. Why not ask me my agenda instead of backbiting me?

All will be clear when I post the results. Also, I didn't say I see the criticisms only in this site. Go to others and you will see hatred and blind fury. I chose this as one of my sources so that I could get a wider range of answers than keeping to only one.It doesn't pay to jump to conclusions.

For OLV read "side of the debate". Will that clear the matter up? No, somebody's already questioned my use of the word debate. Try "origin of life and its ongoing existence".There now follows a detailed and therefor long posting to try to explain myself in part. I hope you can take it the nonantagonistc way I mean it, knowing that I wil still be criticised for doing so. Somebody will probably tell me off for saying criticise.The subject brings out a lot of emotion that is strong enough to influence thinking. It's impossible to allow for everything. Please be patient with me and allow for my imperfections.I chose to say Origin of Life because saying what the two sides of these debates are would have meant listing one of them first. I didn't want anyone to accuse me of bias so I picked a neutral expression. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I could have said origin of species but that might have made me look biased. "Belief of how we came to have all the wide variety of living organisms today" would have been better in one respect but very longwinded." I would also have been pilloried for calling it a belief not a fact. If I had said fact, somebody would have criticised me for being biased in accepting that the other side to theirs might be right. Believe me, some folk will be likely to do something like that. I've had to deal with it a lot.Ok ok, for Origin of Life Viewpoint or OLV read "the explanation/fact/certainty/theory/basis for belief or whatever similar or dissimilar wording/terminology/expression you may have for how the organisms in the world/universe appeared/came into being/originated/sprang forth."I wasn't being sarcastic/rude/nasty/flippant/snarky/picky/petty/victimising etc. I was just trying to explain myself without further misunderstandings. And there will still be those that miss the point in what I said this time and attack/criticise/overrule/question/distort/misunderstand. I tell you, however you say things in these sites, someone will take it the wrong way. Some will even willfully change what you say into something they can attack/whatever etc.If you can think up another way to say it that would never be misunderstood, I'll use it. Be warned, though: some folk will misunderstand anything. It's not very easy to allow for everything. Just look at the posting that trashed the whole survey because of one typo.Now I'll be wrong for saying something in that!

"What does the colour and shape question mean in relation to abiogenesis?"Some say that such variations indeed prove their "explanation for the beginning of life", whichever explanation that may be. I wanted to know how many did and who didn't.It's clear that folk have already made assumptions about what they think I'm researching. Maybe not you but I've already been criticised by them for making mistakes that they think I've made.