Wow, guys, thanks for the great discussion here! :3 I've been away for a while since writing this I know, but I wanted to update my thoughts since the original question, after considering everyone's input here.
I think that because rewilding does feel spiritual in a sense, and perhaps even the root of it is a spiritual choice to view the world differently, it may be important that people come into it by choice. I don't see it being the kind of spiritual path someone chooses just because their parents do it or it's a popular/majority type thing, like some religions. Everyone I know who got into rewilding has because their personal feelings, experiences, and knowledge have led them to personally conclude that it makes most sense for them. I mean, that's how it was for me. That's one reason why I think it wouldn't really help to force it on people who haven't already seen or realized some of the important points of rewilding, or reasons for it, themselves. Or if they've been exposed to the impending-collapse-of-civ scenario, and were open enough to consider it, and not just deny it.
About a week ago I was feeling really depressed about everything going on, mostly after reading about the mass fish death near California. So a close friend of mine asked why I was down. I had never mentioned my reason for being interested in rewilding to him before, only that I had made the trip to Echoes in Time last summer to learn some dynamite skills. I basically said how I was frustrated that what most people in our society consider as the "real world" is actually the abstract concepts of money economy and business and such, over the REAL WORLD which consists of living things, soil, water, etc, and the economy/ecology of how they all should be able to balance each other. After saying this, he asked if I had read Ishmael, haha and I actually was pretty excited and cheered up. Apparently he has a good friend in NY who he really looks up to who has recommended he read more related works (Derrick Jensen, etc.). He's already into discussing concepts of all kinds of things, which made it easy for me to broach the subject.
And then there's the point about debate being forcefull. It's just part of my personality to become stubborn if someone tells me to do something in a way which makes me feel ordered. Even if it's something I would happily choose to do on my own, I think I just greatly dislike the feeling of doing something just because someone else told me to. It's very important for me to have the ability make an independent choice about what I do. So I've had to tell friends and people I work with before that I'll be very eager to help or do something if it's asked or suggested, but if it feels like they are "telling me what to do" I immediately become stubborn and even feel a little resentment. (Haha, it's kind of funny to me how drastically different it is, if someone asks for help or contribution, I'm happy to give them my best effort, but if I feel like they're not giving me a choice, even if it's just all in the verbal delivery, I'm like "NOPE." >:| ) I'm bringing this up because I think that if I don't like ideas forced on me, why should anyone else respond well? They'll likely become defensive, and isn't that what debate seems to be made of? "HEY THIS IS MY FACT, I"M SHOVIN IT IN UR FACE" "OH HELL NAW! U CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO THINK. THIS IS HOW I DO." "NO THAT'S DUMB" "PFFT well why should I buy what you're telling me". LOL I guess that's a worst case scenario, but even when carried out politely, the impression of respect is really just a front, as people are still forcing ideas.
I will admit that I think earlier on I wanted to debate, because to me, the concept of inevitable civ collapse as well as the continuing destruction of the nonhuman people and life we actually need to support our own life (and all the thoughts of how insane that is) is such an obvious reality to me. I was frustrated that so many people just didn't see it, or if they would be willing to see it, they still would make reasons or justifications for things being this way, even when I pose my feelings about the "real world" that civ is founded on, and the real physical living world like mentioned above (I usually hear human nature arguments, basically bullshit reasons in my opinion). I felt that when a person pressed their "facts" about all societies being based on sex, money, war, I got defensive. I felt that it should be obvious, but because it's rare for people to already understand, thanks to civ-indoctrination and such
I could go on forever, but I'm feeling it's time to conclude for now. So my conclusion:
I definitely prefer communication like that used here on this forum, ideas are suggested, and everything is given fair consideration. If something is disagreed with, there are reasons, but it has still been considered. I feel that people are generally respectful of personal independent choices, and in that way people can be open with each other, and actually get along better than if everyone just buys into the exact same concept, agreeing with each other like a flock, and then attacking ideas that differ. I think that's where a lot of the negativity and horizontal hostility may come from (though I don't really know for sure, it could be all kinds of things, that's just a thought I had. I'm willing to bet someone else can suggest different reasons, and I'd invite them). Lol, my brain is beginning to tangent now on how interesting it is that though being open to and inviting independent choice, a society could be more accepting, less forceful, and perhaps less likely to become stagnant, as they are open to new independent choices and ideas. I just think that's neat. (sounds kinda like egalitarian tribe dynamics that I'd think rewilders would take a liking to)
--having spent the last few hours having multiple conversations and not having had much sleep, I've kind of trailed off, so if I have any further thoughts later, maybe I'll write another post.
TL;DR: Basically I'm deciding not to bother with debate, probably mostly for empathic reasons (I don't like things being forced on me, why should I use a forceful method of communication such as debate, especially when rewilding is often a path taken by individual choice, based on an individual's personal experience, knowledge, feeling, etc. leading them to that choice.)
Haha, besides, I simply suck at debate, so why waste my energy learning to when I can invite people to the ideas, and let them grow into rewilding on their own?