dust eater

Climate Change Deniers
Cesar Millan's 'dominating techniques' advocates
Anti-Evolutionists (note, not talking about the source of life itself)

i wasn't aware of the second one prior to this uni's semester. but back to the point, if you have conducted (unbiased & complete) research - like scientists who publish papers-, how can you acknowledge the presence of & then deny something that is logical and more beneficial to believe in? i'm truly scared of un-backed/cyclic arguments. you can't have a proper debate without ground-rules.
referring to the first one & as has been pointed out by many already: is winning an argument more important than risking environmental changes that could potentially be detrimental to (human) life? change IS hard and uncomfortable, but all i wish for is open-mindedness.