I actually applaud the fact that discussions seem less macho and more civil(from both sides), it helps understanding the other better. For example, only now do I understand why they are so adamant in bringing Sunni narrations about so-called Tahreef into the discussion. Key concept seems to be "giving the benefit of the doubt". They seem to say, we give the benefit of the doubt to our scholars with wrong opinions just like you do with your companions when it comes to these types of narrations.
The key issue is however, what kind of benefit of the doubt are we talking about? Saying that you give someone the benefit of the doubt with respect to what his understanding is, is entirely different from giving someone the benefit of the doubt with respect to HOW he came to his understanding (an understanding of which there is no doubt).
So someone talking about a certain verse that can't be found in the Qur'an anymore can be understood as an abrogated verse. However, someone stating explicitly that certain people have corrupted the Qur'an, there is no benefit of the doubt with what they mean, the benefit of the doubt that the Shia's are talking about is how they came to that understanding, which is entirely different.
Basically, people should say, if something is POSSIBLY Tahreef we leave it out of the discussion, if something is CERTAINLY Tahreef it should be discussed. And if they in response want to be intellectually dishonest by stating that those Sunni narrations are CERTAINLY Tahreef while the narration of the 17000 verses is not and can have a valid understanding, then that should be pointed out as well.
It's like one says "Germany won the World Cup as the big news corporations have reported." One can say, maybe he's talking about a different year or another sport. If one says "France won the FIFA World Cup four times in a row now, the big news corporations are infiltrated by Francophobes and trying to hide the news from the masses" and you claim that you have as a Qa'ida "Whatever the big news corporations have reported is absolutely and undoubtedly true and what goes against it should be thrown against the wall", one can try to say that maybe he's saying that out of ignorance, but two entirely different doubts are discussed here. Apparently to the Shia, if you do the first you have to do the second.