What is civil discussion?

There has been a controversy in our community about what is civil discussion. Some seem to feel that any regulation of speech is a violation of some basic right. They do not seem to believe in the existence of "verbal abuse". They limit the idea of "attacking the man" as a logical fallacy only to when a person does this who is "losing" and then makes it personal. If one is "winning" the argument then it is ok to slander and attack the person who is "losing" the intellectual argument. Some see that any call for civil discourse is to make a group a "church" and makes it "religious".

Others believe that civil discourse is one of the basic ingredients to effective dialogue in a civilized society. The first step towards the physical abuse of people who have different ideas is the verbal abuse of these people in a way that dehumanizes them. It is a call to intimidate others holding such views to be silent in fear that they may be treated in the same manner. It is based on the idea that attacking the person regardless if one is "winning" or "losing" the debate is a logical fallacy. It believes that the search for truth is best done not clouded by the defensive and angry emotions that are the normal response when someone calls us a name or attacks our being. The idea here is that we need to disagree passionately about ideas but to do so in an agreeable manner.

So what do you think and why? The why is the most important part.