Answer:
   
   These are disputes among Orthodox-Conservative-Reform Jews, perhaps
   the most regular and least productive discussion topic.
   
   Why is this? Perhaps it's a carryover from Talmudic study, in which
   decisions are reached by proposing a series of ideas, vigorously
   attacking them, and seeing which remain standing when the dust clears.
   Everyone is expected to be able to state his first principles and
   demonstrate how his practices are consistent with said principles.
   
   If the correctness of one of your practices is attacked, the best
   defense is to show that it is consistent with your principles, but not
   the attacker's. Once a debate boils down to different principles,
   there's nothing more to add, except to try to change each others'
   principles somehow.
   
   Another form of attack is to assert that another group's practices
   harm the Jewish people or Jewish survival. That group may well
   disagree with your assessment. If the different assessments are due to
   different principles, there's nothing more to add.
   
   Before jumping into the RCO pot, consider the following story, which
   was shared by David Kaufmann:
   
     Rabbi Manis Friedman, at a lecture to the women's organizations of
     a Reform synagogue and Chabad (co-sponsored by both), gave the
     following parable/analogy:
     
     The Jewish people are like children of a father gone on a long
     journey. They argue over what type of soup their father wants when
     he comes back - and are busy preparing the soup. "Father will want
     chicken soup, just like he did before." "No, Father wanted chickens
     soup then, now he'll want vegetable soup." When the father returns,
     what will matter is that the children cared most about what their
     father wanted and tried to have it ready for him.