I come to ENWorld to continue to learn and improve the gameplay at our tables (where we play 5e). I hope to also pay it forward here by sharing in my own words what I've learned from other posters as well as outside resources that have benefited our groups. By sharing, it becomes a positive feedback loop for me as I'm better able to engrain a concept into how I run and play 5e.
I'm glad for the varied viewpoints brought to bear in these discussions as they help me discover new ideas and new ways of looking at how I run a game - and also help challenge, and often strengthen, how I already approach the game.
Of course, sometimes it's a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff in discussions. Sometimes posters are arguing for the sake of arguing and under no circumstance will back down to admit there is another way to look at things or that they might outright be wrong. That is of course magnified by the anonymous nature of the forum (as others have mentioned upthread).
Also, sometimes posters are arguing under false pretenses - and, likely most often, not doing so deliberately. They may be indicating that a rule or ruling is wrong when they a. haven't really read the DMG/PHB fully to hold a deep understanding of the rule (raises hand sheepishly as something I've done in the past), and/or b. are misunderstanding the assumptions behind the debate (yep, been here too), and/or c. don't actually play the edition being discussed or are bringing in assumptions from other editions/games. Any of these can lead to obfuscation and frustration and make it appear that our games are more disparate than the same.
At the end of the day, if we actually played in the game of another forum poster with whom we seem to disagree, I think such a game more often than not may actually run IRL much the same as our own with perhaps some minor adjustments (which may or may not be annoyances) - and fun would be had.