I tend to dismiss people who like to debate things and do what I can to remove them from my life.
Heh. I think I'd get bored hanging around people who never debated anything...
Then again, you may well be onto something there. People don't like to be disagreed with, and they're more likely to like you if you don't shoot them down over trivia. Conversely, if you become a "yes man" to all that people say, you may well lose respect, or never build it. Perhaps the art is in deciding when disagreeing is necessary or appropriate - picking your battles so to speak.
It never creates and answers and solutions. Only frustration and bad feelings. It doesn't fire the imagination, it kills it dead.
I know you're talking about taste (which you can't be wrong about, because it's yours), but regardless I think you may be oversimplifying a bit there, arcady. I think that there's debate, where people are arguing the toss in a way that sheds light on the topic, and fights, where people are hostile, throwing personal insults around and are "out to get" the other side. IMO, a constructive debate will reveal information, force thinking things through, and challenge assumptions, whereas a fight fits your definition of being an imagination killer.
I agree with that. I still like to argue things out - after the game. During the game, you should keep things rolling and let it all happen.
Hmm. I agree on the surface of it, and have used it in the past myself, but I can see a hole in this theory which I've noticed in application:
If you shove issues aside until after the game, you risk leaving one or more people somewhat frustrated for the remainder of the session, which can change the tone of the game to an unenjoyable one. This is not a problem if the group is mature enough, I suppose, but not every group is - especially during a game which piques the adrenalin or emotions (as it should).