I just want to advise you to increase your tolerance for the opposing views expressed in the Majlis. Nothing will happen if an opposing view is expressed. You should simply listen to an opposing view, and try to refute it through logical reasoning. If you don't have enough time, to refute the opposing view or respond to it, you should not vote and take action. If you want to clarify something for your friend, do it in a calm manner. Let others express their views completely. Unfortunately, since the beginning we have had the same problem: Some MPs aggressively raise their voice while someone is speaking at the podium. I remember when I was President, I went to the Majlis to deliver a long, detailed lecture; one of the MPs, who was a friend of mine, had different political views. As you know, the reactions were a little strong at that time. Midway, through my lecture, he started speaking aloud from the back of the Majlis. I told him I would express my own views, and he may choose not to accept them. He stopped talking; but, he interrupted me several times again. I saw him, later on, and questioned him on his behavior that day. I stated, 'he should have just listened to my views, and he should have expressed his own in front of the Majlis after my lecture.' I told him, 'I was the president, after me it was the MPs who get to speak as much as they wish.' He said, 'No, the point is that when you talk, you may influence some people. That was what I wanted to prevent!' That may be a good technique, but I believe it is not appropriate for the Majlis, which is a place where the elites of the Islamic community meet.
When I was a seminarian, I was used to this kind of arguing: while stating positions, seminarians would repeatedly interrupt one another. In other words, when a seminarian is in the middle of his argument, another seminarian interrupts and presents a counterargument--who is in turn interrupted by the first seminarian. Arguments, often, do not end in a conclusion. Have you heard that sometimes seminarians 'throw their books at each other while debating?' This is rooted in the fact that they kept interrupting one another. But years ago, seminarians, gradually, developed a tendency to listen to the debater until he finished with his position. They learned to, first, listen to perspectives that might appear to be wrong, false, and weak; and, then, they would start to present their own positions and rebuttal.