I read the OP, and while I can see the logic behind it, I don't agree with it. Along with apologetics is the intent of the apologist, and that is where I think the problem exists. Defending the faith is one thing, but one that is very seldom seen. More often than not, a Christian learns apologetics in order to justify having heated debates, oneupmanship of other people from different viewpoints, and feed their own ego. Human nature though, so what can you do?
I read the OP, and while I can see the logic behind it, I don't agree with it.
I'm glad that you're being respectful and cordial. I really appreciate that you're willing to disagree with me but not do so in a mean spirited way. I hope you don't mind if I do the same with what you've said. I'll quote what you say in order to avoid putting words into your mouth and creating easy positions to tear down.
I also have a question. What exactly don't you agree with? Could you provide me an example?
Along with apologetics is the intent of the apologist, and that is where I think the problem exists.
I can't agree more! The intent of the apologist is vital if one is going to engage in discourse and debate on hot topic issues. I preach this all the time to those that I teach. I believe that this is a crucial issue.
I do have a few questions that would help me more clearly understand your position.
1) Do you think that this problem is insurmountable and thus, should be avoided?
2) Do you think that apologetics should be discarded on the basis of the ill-intent of any given apologist? If so, why?
Defending the faith is one thing, but one that is very seldom seen.
I don't know who you have watched debate but I'll provide two examples of people who should be the standard of debating and one who should've never gotten into apologetics.
1) William Lane Craig
He has an entire ministry dedicated to debating atheists and yet I have never seen him so much as raise his voice. He's consistently polite even when he is constantly interrupted. This is highlighted in his debate with theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, who on three different debates interrupted Dr. Craig throughout the entire debate. Dr. Craig was very gracious during every debate. I find his willingness to debate Dr. Krauss three times, even after knowing how Krauss would conduct himself shows what it looks like to be respectful during debates.
2) Greg Koukl
I don't have an example like the one above but Greg has an uncanny way of being respectful even when he isn't treated with the same type of respect.
3) The one who shouldn't have gotten into apologetics.
Dr. Kent Hovind. I think he is the epitome of what you're talking about. In every lecture I have ever seen, he comes across arrogant, pompous, disrespectful, mean spirited, egotistical to the point that it disgusts me. So I am very sympathetic to your opposition of apologists.