Wikipedia holds the principle of neutrality very firmly. This is not to say that the writers are a bunch of "middle-of-the-road" opinionless Cnidarians. Debates often take place here. This is, arguably, a good thing when it leads to the overall improvement of an article. Sadly, they all-too-frequently degrade into (often pointless partisan) squabbles that have little effect on building a better encyclopedia. Even more generally, many of us would rather be working on an encyclopedia, rather than engaging in any squabbles at all.
If you solely enjoy reading passionate and inflamed rhetoric on controversial topics, please visit Usenet.
On Wikipedia, you can find some arguing, however many wish it would go away -- except in those cases where it actually serves some purpose.
- talk:White trash
- talk:International English -- a good example of how debate can actually lead to a consensus.
- New Age and talk:New Age (Personally I'm inclined to categorize this under "worst debates" ...)
- See also : Wikipedia commentary