Basically, religion is a belief, a faith, that someone holds on to, and no matter what, they will believe in it and accept it in all it's glory. There is no discussion after that.
There are plenty of people who believe that either their religious views have a sound logical basis, or that all the alternatives have logical inconsistencies and therefore their religious ones are the only possible accurate ones.
Given that, it is entirely possible to change peoples' beliefs through argument.
Furthermore, debate need not be for the purpose of changing minds. It is also an exchange in information, allowing the involved parties to understand that much more of their opposing viewpoints.
The general idea is that the argument culture (in this case, the Serious Discussion thread) "urges us to approach the world-and the people in it-in an adversarial frame of mind", and he discussed against "the knee-jerk nature of approaching almost any issue, problem, or public person in an adversarial way.
In other words, we're arguing for the sake of argument.
Exercised properly, debate urges us to communicate clearly, to think clearly, and to understand that with which we do not agree.
Those who do not do this are, to call up a meme,
doing it wrong.
Just because some people cannot comprehend intelligent discourse comparing hypothesies and their reasoning, and just beacuse some people do not enjoy the practice of thinking, does not mean that no one does, nor that no one can benefit from it.
we should be discussing things that everyone can contribute to, rather than throwing arguments and defending ideas. Things like the Oil Spill at the Gulf of Mexico, or things like the upcoming elections in Iraq, and how the Taliban are taking advantage of it using threats.
Throwing arguments and defending them is a valid form of discourse. It can be applied to all subjects you brought up. It, and whatever you may have had in mind as an alternative to it, can be applied to any other discussion, including religious. I do not see what your issue here is.
There is zero evidence, other than from the bible, that creationism exists. The evidence for evolution has been brought out from people that work their lives investigating this topic and finding them. They are published in world-reknowned journals such as Nature. The Bible, on the other hand, has no solid evidence.
And there are people who disagree with you. This is (one of) the point(s) of debate - to determine which case (if either) is correct, by analyzing the bases of each.
For example, there are people who believe in irreducible complexity (organs in creatures which could not have evolved and therefore disprove evolution). Their reasoning may be sound. It may not. As I do not believe in irreducible complexity, it would befit me to explain how something which a creationist believes to be irreducibly complex may have evolved. Now, that creationist has learned something; else, they will have a counterargument, and from that counterargument,
I will learn something. Either way, or ideally both, is good.
None.