system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I don't believe filibustering should be allowed in any governmental body, CMV.

Specifically in US politics, I feel that the filibuster is often portrayed as one person who felt so strongly on a subject that they stood up against the tides and fought it.  A David vs. Goliath story with the lone senator as the hero.

However, I feel that the filibuster is a failure of democracy because it makes the majority opinion irrelevant when any one person, in the minority, has the power to unilaterally derail any legislation.  Also, the modern day filibuster is rarely Mr. Smith goes to Washington style with one person standing and reading the phone-book for 12 hours - in the US senate, a filibuster can literally be phoned-in without the objecting senator even being present or talking, they can have their staff object on their behalf, and delay a bill for "debate" for weeks.

To be clear, I object to filibustering always.  I will admit that it has been used to stop things I opposed such things as ANWAR oil drilling and the Texas state senate abortion clinic reform; But I would rather they had been approved through the majority-rule system that the senate was founded on, rather than stopped by a method of unilateral blockading.

I may be sheltered to this argument, because until recently I thought that any sensible person would agree.  However recently I have seen many people hold the view that a filibuster is a necessary tool and part of the tradition of the American governmental system.  I am of open mind, so CMV, why should I approve of filibustering?

EDIT: *I really did not expect this much response! I'll read through these all on 7/24 when I have enough time to give them the individual attention they deserve.  Thanks to everyone who took time to put together a response.*
gpt
Since you said that you oppose all filibusters, I'll only focus on the speaking filibuster instead of the modern Senate filibuster.

The purpose of the filibuster is not to stop legislation through brow-beating; it is to have all opposing points entered into the public record. By allowing the opposition all the time they desire to speak on the subject, it ensures that there is no relevant detail missed.

So why does it matter if the public record has a complete opposing argument or not? For one, it shows that certain consequences were known beforehand. For example, let's say that there was a proposed bill for a bridge across some river. One of the opposing representatives points out that the change in waterflow caused by the bridge would result in a dramatic decrease in the fish population. Since that consequence is in the public record, the supporting representatives could not pretend that they didn't know it would happen.

Furthermore, it also helps demonstrate what it is the supporting representatives reject. In the bridge example, those who voted for the bill would be on record as rejecting the importance of ecological damage. Anything that helps better define the motivations of elected representatives makes for a more clear choice at the ballot box and a better resulting government.

In short, the talking filibuster gives the opposition the opportunity to make it clear to the public why they think the majority should not have voted for the bill.