ADDIT:  I think it time to have Sean or Mongoose brought on board here.  I'll abide with what they feel is right and proper.

I think WE [ADDIT] are confusing "taking a course of study," or having a friendly discussion, with "debating." In general, a debate is an exchange between rivals, the intent being to provide a level arena in which proponents of opposing ideas will have an opportunity to demonstrate the greater salience, accuracy, or validity of their position, i.e., to garner support for their position, and foment opposition for their opponents position. Debates are also (from an educational standpoint) a medium for mental-athletes to practice and hone their skills by engaging in discussions about imporant (but generally quite esoteric) topics with other mental athletes.

The view of a "debate" that you seem to take is one of a consensual agreement-stating-session, else one of a mutual inform-and-englightenment network. While I'm not trying to generally condemn such cyber-interactions as being insipid or useless, I am simply saying that, there is a difference between a debate and a social exchange in which there is a lack of strong oppositional polarity in the views held by participants. The term "debate" is IMO better reserved from the more "confrontational" (even if only structurally so) sort of engagement in which there is a fundamental disagreement in the rhetorical position of one or more participants, and the purpose and trajectory of the exchange is a kind of competitive marshalling of support for their positions, and discreditation for the position of their opponents.

I can agree with you that warm fuzzy social interactions are preferable. But when people act as proponents of ideas or social forms that I have concluded are harmful, I feel it is my duty as a global citizen to speak up and counter such ideas and social forms. Islamic customs about the disenfranchisement of women (e.g., moral imperatives to cover the face) are among these sorts of ideas and social customs to speak out in opposition to. If it is generally distressing or unpleasant for my fellow 1BC community members to witness such discourse, then perhaps they should simply not view those threads in which such discussions occur? Or, a more radical option, they could set their settings to "Ignore" various users, myself included. Or, if the ongoing debates are seen by the owners and moderators of the site to be simply too much for the community to bear, then I would propose this: Be an equal opportunity censor: Do not allow anyone to express anything about a topic with which someone else might strongly disagree, and feel a moral imperative to counter. Keep the entire site restricted to nice, friendly, un-disagreeable banter associated with the game, strategy, etc.

I try to be a good scientist, meaning, I reach a conclusion based on as much objective evidence as I can marshal. Once I seem to have marshalled enough that the primary and secondary questions are addressed, I will allow the conclusions to inform the rest of my thinking, my ideology, my activism, my behavior, my social interactions. But I also try to always remain open to alternative, oppositional, or contrary new evidence, and to have the humility, calm, and adaptiveness to say in the face of new and contradictory evidence "the tentative conclusion I have been working from up till now seems to have been brought into question by new evidence, and to require reformulation, if not abandonment." In this sense, I will always be open to being "convinced" by an opponent in a debate, even a debate in which I feel strongly about my conclusions and the position I am arguing. Even in a debate about a topic like slavery, in which I feel quite firm in my conclusions and would argue quite strongly, I like to strive to the ideal that I COULD always be convinced to change my position if suitable contrary or clarifying evidence could be brought to bear.

I have laid out above, the nature of the evidence I would need to alter my position against the burqua and niqqab, which I conclude are generally harmful. Scripture does not suffice in this respect; sociological, epidemiological, educational, demographic, medical, psychological sources of data with respect to contemporary populations is what I insist on as evidence, because that is what I have formulated my conclusions on at present.