Being civil is what stops people from childish name-calling and forces them to engage with the argument. If you attack the person and not the argument, you've lost

I disagree but it depends how we define as "Civility". If civility means making sure fallacies are in check and having an open-minded attitude towards the propositions given by the opposition, then civility is a requirement for any proper discourse. Living in a world filled with arbitrary arguments and ideological tribalism, perhaps most of us need practice some civility in our heated discussions. However, being overly civil to the point of avoiding offense is not preferable either. We must be clear in making our point across and not be afraid to disagree with the opposition.

I am neutral on this because “Civility” in this question lacks context. Are we talking about avoiding logical fallacies and sticking to the facts? Are we talking about not “offending” someone who merely disagrees with you? Are we talking about simply not using vulgarity? I support any form of communication, whether vulgar or not, that a person can understand the intended meaning. Many people have a very limited and low vocabulary, yet can still communicate a viable point (some people only grew up talking a certain way, and that’s all they know), so vulgarity and inarticulate speech does not necessarily offend me. I support using facts and rational concepts in communicating a point, but it can become aggravating when an opponent spends the entire debate pointing out logical fallacies and showcasing their mastery of Latin. It can also be equally annoying when an opponent resorts to insults and personal attacks in a discussion of a debated topic. Before I can choose a more definitive stance on this question, “Civility” needs to be defined in specific terms within the context of the conversation.