To that I respond, YOUR MOM'S RETARDED!
Q.E.D.
Nevertheless, I've been meaning to discuss some of the advantages of debating/discussing/arguing on the Internet versus in person, and the both exciting and petty debate that ensued from my previous post helped to fuel my motivation.
As Dave alluded to, Internet forums are a place where people like me can engage in debate without having to worry about actually having to face the person they're arguing with.
How true this is.
You see, when you have a debate on the internet, you have time to collect your thoughts. The speed at which you provide a retort is irrelevant, as it should be. You can formulate a rational argument (if you so choose) or in the case of some people, a nuclear-powered insult. I prefer the former, but I don't mind if the latter gets mixed in provided the content remains sound.
You don't have to worry about your audience interrupting you, or dodging the point by poking fun at superficial things like mispronounced words, etc. It's almost guaranteed that they will read what you have to say in its entirety; this opportunity is a luxury in my daily life. For this reason, I love debating with certain people online versus in person. They don't know how to act when they can't interrupt.
The written record is nice as well. It's helpful to be able to call people on their B.S.; perhaps they claim that you said something that you didn't, or that they never said something that they in fact did. Written formats also make it much easier to formulate logical arguments and refutations. Spoken logical arguments/refutations, on the other hand, 1) are easily dismissed with a "whatever"-type response, and 2) are fodder for interruption/sidetracking.
Of course, written debates aren't all peaches and cream Quaker oatmeal. For one, the lack of personal presence leads people, believe it or not, to be more caustic and vicious than they might otherwise be, especially when dealing with strangers. Does this viciousness materialize out of thin air though? Or is it repressed, and brought out in the relatively safe environment that the Internet provides? I'm not sure.
Online debates also tend to become very long-winded, with lots of fighting over points and sub-points. In person, we can't remember this much detail so we tend to move on out of necessity. This is either a good or bad thing, depending upon your perspective.
All in all, I wish more debates (e.g. political ones) were conducted in written form. It makes for a much better forum for presenting rational arguments that can be objectively evaluated, and eliminates a lot of the evasiveness and posturing that is so distracting in face-to-face exchanges.
As a long-winded aside, it perhaps goes without saying, but I wish that people ensured that they had sound arguments before entering into a debate of any kind. Ego shouldn't be the basis of arguments, regardless of how much we love to have it influence our snarky comments during these debates. On a related note, it's important to concede as soon as you realize that you're incorrect about something. If someone points out an inaccuracy or flaw in your logic, own up to it. People are so stuck in their ego-driven mindsets that they actually worry about "looking bad" and will defend poor arguments in order to save face. If I'm debating Creationism versus Darwinian Evolution, who cares who looks good or bad? If the person I'm debating with has a solid gold argument, I should be thankful to have the opportunity to learn from it. Why would I be so stubborn to cling to my stance despite having better evidence to the contrary? That's just silly.
1 comment:
Good post. I do enjoy a debate often to learn from others. When I enter into an argument(often driven by ego) I appreciate hearing anothers thoughts that I possibly wouldn't have come up with on my own.
Post a Comment