Protesters vs. Supporters: What's The Point?

So I was reading the paper this morning ... well, actually, I was watching "Armstrong & Getty", and they were reading the paper this morning ... and they pointed out this story about that lady waiting for Dubya to protest the war, 'cause her son died in Iraq. What was her name again? Right - Cindy Sheehan. Apparently, there's a group forming of soldiers' families and loved ones that support the troops and the war, who don't agree with Sheehan's stance.

Those two, God love 'em, exclaimed they were sick of the story, but that's not the point. My whole thing is ... well, there's a picture on the front page of the paper of supporters of the "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" Movement "squaring off" with anti-war supporters of Cindy Sheehan. Opposite sides of a huge social issue yelling at each other for hours on end. Two completely different viewpoints going at each other.

Do you see a problem here?

I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm the only one who sees it this way, but, DAMMIT! I don't see the point in these "confrontations"! This goes for religious groups and the Catholic Church fighting Same-Sex Marriage supporters on the streets of San Francisco, or any other conflict of the sort.

I just don't see the point at confronting each other - what's their ultimate goal, on either side? It's as if they yell at the other side enough, they'll, all of a sudden, out of the blue, go, "Oh, my God, you're absolutely right! My viewpoint is completely wrong!" and concede on the spot.

In my naive opinion, all these confrontations really are, are shouting matches, and it makes both sides look irrational, stupid, crazy or all of the above. Now, don't get me wrong - both sides certainly have perfectly valid points. All I'm saying that shouting matches and heated confrontations in public forums are no way to rationally present them. Most of the time, you guys just look like kookulas. (Thank you, Joe Getty, for that term.)