How not to debate on the internet
 

Ok, let's make this short and sweet.

What NOT to do:
1. I see too many people who use the method where they quote a user and pick apart every single point they make. This is not a good way to debate. Why? Because it becomes less and less about the point at hand, and more and more about simply proving the other person wrong. I call this "The Darth Vader Effect." It's not illegal to make a pointed remark directly at someone, but the tone of the debate becomes very personal very fast. It crosses over into the Dark Side. Just make your point, after point, after point, after point.

2. Do not claim a disadvantage. You may be arguing against a moderator, administrator, or even me, but as long as you can debate in a respectful manner, you will never be at a disadvantage. Yes, people have gotten banned for debating against moderators. However, it was not because they simply disagreed, it was because they acted like a cornered mutt when it came down to the wire. I call this "The Jew-For-A-Day Defense." TRUST your moderators - they work as a team.

3. Don't FOCUS on the flow of your opposition's argument. If you feel that by causing your opponent to say something out of character, you've automatically won the debate, you are sadly mistaken. I call this "The Bill O'Reilly Tactic." It can also be referred to loosely as "The Chewbacca Defense." If you've ever been fooled into thinking a TV show is GOOD because it is popular, then you need to make sure that you read this paragraph one more time.

Thank you.

that is some great advice. I (not a very good debater) will seriously take this all into consideration from now on. thanks. maybe you could make this (or something very similar) a sticky in the politics board?

Arguing brings out the worst of me. Sometimes I feel like there is a Hulk inside of me.

I say the same thing as yatz, this would be great in politics.

*noted*

I wonder if this has something to do with a certain thread in Tilted Motors....

Uhhhhhhhh... take a look in General Discussion.

I never debate much, people in this forum are wayyy out of my "debate league" but when I do, if that rare occasion ever rises, I'll be sure to keep this in mind...

one more thing...
Permission to post this at another forum? all creds will be yours of course.

Jew for a day?

I usually don't debate/argue much, as I'm sure you've not seen any posts like that from me on this board, really. I'm thinking that I'm kind of like Halx like that, in that I do my research before coming to the debate table, and I don't start an argument really. If something comes up that I don't know anything about, or whatever, I'll admit it, maybe express what I might think about it, but remind those involved that I just don't know for sure. Then, I'll go do the research, come back, and we'll go from there.

Good words, there, Halx.

Thank you Halx.
I just got finished reading The Art of Contreversy post and everywhere that we are in every circumstance we're in, competition, arguing, and ridiculing will not assist in creating a great outcome. It distances each other and pushes away the growth of us as individuals, and as a society, and as the human race.
Differences are good! Why can't people see that? That if we didn't encouter those who are different from us, how would we realize and learn of who we are ourselves? Embrace the differences, accept the differences, and move on knowing that you are you and that we are not here to tell each other what to do, what to believe, or that someone else is wrong just because we don't believe the same as them.

Well, that too. There was a lot of that quote/response malarkey over his TL.

Also noted

Thanks, Halx.

I think every single one of us here has learned something significant about personal interaction by means of our participation on this board. It's the most palpable evidence of our evolving nature. I believe if we think about how we relate to each other today compared to how it was in the past we can see some skills have been gained and progress made toward human understanding and mutual respect. These are things we can apply online and in the real world.

It's working out well...because of our willingness to work at it and work it out.

This is the only forum I don't see all those items done on a regular basis.

I've gotten in a few debates where people do nothing but your first point and ad hominem attacks... its not very much fun, which debating over a topic can be most of the time.

I'd also like to add (if I may be so bold):

4) Fighting against unarmed opponents is cruel and unusual punishment for them... Cut them some slack and take the high road instead of publicly humiliating them.

Good post, and I agree with it for the most part. A lot of times I feel it's necessary to counter someone's argument point-for-point. Not because I want to argue for the sake of proving them wrong, but because it's an effective way to clearly communicate. For me, the content of a post is more important than the way the post is structured.

Ever taken a debate class? To cross argue in a debate, you actuall do pick apart everything the other person stated. But, you do it in a respectable, impersonal mannor and tone. There is a difference between arguing and debating. I do very much agree that there have been a number of debates that have turned into arguments due to someone not having respect for what another said, or someone taking something the wrong way.

You're the man, Art! Well said!

This is why I largely stay away from discussions on religion and politics. With politics, the weight of pre-formed opinion and anecdotal experience consistently overpowers rational debate. Particularly with politics, there is no middle ground, and those who occupy it end up feeling like uninformed wafflers. This nation is so, so incredibly divided between conservative and liberal (which is all the more aggravating because the international understanding is that we stand firmly united behind our current leader, which is almost never the case with any administration). Religion is particularly heinous because of the massive historical and philosophical knowledge required to take a sturdy position.

The only one of those that I disagree with, Hal, is the first one, but only in certain cases. I try not to do it, but in some cases, you come across a post so blatantly *insert problem here*, that picking it apart in that manner is the best way of dealing with it.

It usually happens only on incredibly moronic, illogical, ignorant, or otherwise ridiculous posts. Ive never done it here, and dont think I ever will--I havent come across a post that bad here.

Ill do it sometimes in a debate fashion, but thats how most debates are done, and its always in a respectful tone. Im in the midst of an excellent debate right now with a friend on my webpage, and this is how it is going--its just easier and more efficient to deal with it one point at a time.

If I may be so bold as to step into great company and offer another suggestion on how NOT to debate on the Internet (and TFP): Don't try anything that worked successfully in an AOL chat room.

Yeah, I'd like to know what that means too.

A/S/L?

Chewbacca is a wookie and he lives on Endor... That makes no sense. If it makes no sense you must acquit!

In all seriousness picking apart someone's arguement point by point IS an effective way to debate, especially when the person is claiming BS.

Read my reasons for #1 people. This is the internet, not real life where you can read someone's emotions off their face. As noted, this thread is about debating on the internet. Also, using this method also says that you refuse to read between the lines, which just wastes time.

As someone who did debate on a competitive level, there are a few key things that help keep the discussions civilized:

1) Attack the position, not the person.

2) If you're going to make a statement that would seem the least bit suspect, back up your argument with specific evidence (links are wonderful)

3) There is wisdom in silence. Many times, the most powerful arguments lie in what is not said.

Re: How not to debate on the internet
 

I call this the racial slur for the day.

Geez, you guys are touchy. 'Jew-for-a-day' has nothing to do with race. If you look back through history, Jews were persecuted for simply being Jewish. 'Jew-for-a-day' means that the subject is claiming victimization in a convenient manner, as if he had turned Jewish just for the day.

Anyways, I've studied Jewish history and I was raised Jewish. If any of you think 'Jewish' is a race, you need to pick up a book and read.

Thanks Halx, I think you've just shown us how not to debate on the internet.

Re: How not to debate on the internet
 

Often when people write a post, they make numerous points. Addressing each of these points individually is a very logical and systematic way of debating. If they make a point, it deserves to be addressed.
Quoting the person's post and inserting your responses is a very good way of adding structure to your replies, in my opinion. It also makes it very clear what exactly the two people in question disagree about.
It is also a good opportunity to ask someone to clarify what they meant by a specific point.
Of course, this way of posting could be used to be disrespectful, but the method itself is sound. (I use it alot on Tilted Philosophy).

Of course. Nobody gets banned for disagreeing, only for being disrespectful.

"The Chewbacca defense"?
Google is my friend....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

...I don't get it?

I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or agreeing with me.

I'm disagreeing with number one that picking apart someones post, point by point is necessarily a bad thing.

Agree wholeheartedly with two and three.

The deal with #1 is that people often use it to make jabs at their opposition. They take sentences out of context of the rest of the post and twist the meaning.

Well thats obviously a bad way to go about things. Absolutely.

:thumbsup:

*holds his arms open* give me a hug

#1 reason an argument occurs online:

We assume the "tone" or "intention" of someone's words. I've read other people respond with "I didn't like your tone in your last email/message/post..." wtf? How can you tell, really? It's an assumption. And sarcasm also gets easily confusing on the internet as well. Usually the person, if they are being sarcastic, leaves a clue, such as a ;) or lol or !, but sometimes you just can't tell.

When we read someone's post or message that seems to automatically strike a wrong chord with us, take a moment first to re-read the post and think of the possibility of another interpretation or intention behind what they said. If you still aren't 100% sure, ask nicely what they meant by it. Easy as that. If someone is obviously trying to stir a conflict, simply leave it alone. No one said you had to engage. Second of all, if it's disrupting or breaking the forum guidlines, report it to a mod. That's what they're here for.
For the most part, this board flows very well without too many problems- that's one of the reasons why I am here. Also, if you have a concern or rant about something going on here, don't blame or complain- try to assess the problem by finding a solution- as in what can you do about it?
Halx has made valid points, but just complaining about an issue won't solve a damn thing. If you want to see TFP in a better shape than what it is, then think about what you can do that would be a postitive, effective solution.

Damn....as usual, very well put.

I would add , that posting a reply to what seems an obviously antagonistic comment, should be used to quell the anger rather than flame it(thus the term). I have often had an lol moment....Yes I really laugh out loud....when someone trolls, or flamebaits a topic. Simply because it shows laughable ignorance, and why would I wish to become involved in such a thing.
We can all be above such things, if we try. Why not try your hand at diplomacy, and develop a new skill instead?

It is better to remain silent, and be considered a fool.
Than to open your mouth, and remove all doubt.

Then the problem lies with the way the poster uses that method, not the method itself. You don't blame a gun for shooting someone, you blame the shooter.

I agree jewish is not a race, sorry I misspoke. Perhaps bigotted would have been a better word.

"Jew for a day" could very easily be mistaken for a slur even if not ment to be. I grew up in small town Canada where our ethnic diversity was limited to a large Doukhobor population. Until I was ~25 I could not tell a jewish name or trait from your average WASP. Now that I know what to look for I don't give a crap. I don't know where I am going with this. I have a Jewish friend who uses Jewish streotypes all the time.

Halx - have you ever read any Mordecai Richler? Ive heard that if you are jewish you will laugh your ass off. I'm a WASP & I know I did.

(emphasis mine)

If it's so obviously off the mark, then why waste time on it? The poster in question is unlikely to understand how he's wrong, and most people will understand that he's wrong anyway. This just feeds the trolls, as well. Better to just ignore it, IMO :).

Even if you would consider it 'bigoted' I would say you were being overly sensitive. There is such thing as taking offense for the sake of incrimination. When you know the context of my words, how can you possibly take offense otherwise? There is no insulting connotation towards Jews of any kind, only insinuation that the perpetrator would seek to own their honest heritage temporarily and for the duration of a day for self-serving purposes.*

*No Jew's feelings were harmed during the typing of this post. Hippies.