How to End an Argument on the Internet

[caraher]

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

A problem diagnosed, with some partial solutions...

All good things come to an end. Internet arguments never come to an end. You don’t need me to finish the syllogism. In the absence of an end condition, there’s only whoever has the last word. So all online arguments come down to the two people who just will not shut up. They’re like contestants in a Fifties-era dance marathon, each bodily dragging their own limp argument around the dance floor in hopes that the other will collapse first.

A few "rules" (justified in the article)

* If you claim to have supporting evidence available online, but instead of linking to it you say “Look it up yourself,” you lose.

* If you invoke the name of a logical fallacy without explaining its relevance, you lose.

* If you claim to be winning, you lose.

Edited to add link to article!!! DOH!

[pipi_k]

1. A couple more...

* If you are reduced to swearing at your opponent, you lose.

* If the best reply you can come up with is an indictment of your opponent's spelling, reading, or grammar skills...you lose.

[caraher]

3. Just realized I forgot to link the article...

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/alt-text-internet-arguments/

There are more rules as well as justifications... I don't think the author included the spelling/reading/grammar one - good addition!

[Orrex]

8. I'd like to make a distinction, however

It seems to me that one's argument can easily include profanity, even "swearing at one's opponent," without necessarily "being reduced" in any way. Sure, it might not be entirely consistent with the formal rules of debate, but profanity is a part of modern (as well as archaic) discourse, so if it's used well then I say all's fair.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. fucking A or else I am toast!

[In_The_Wind]

2. plus one more

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

*name-calling ~ If that's the best you can do, you lose.

[LWolf]

9. Yes. What would DU look like,

if every single post containing name-calling were hidden?

[In_The_Wind]

12. Empty.

[img][/img]
We can do better if we try.



[img][/img]

[Grantuspeace]

4. Unfortunately, people believe everything they see on the internet.

Except the information from the the links I provide. Even if it is a non-partisan government link. So sometimes I violate the rule and have them search " infant mortality rates", etc. themselves.

[caraher]

6. True, not all sources are created equal

But my teabagger sister-in-law has an incredibly irritating habit of referring to some piece of idiocy she got from her RW circles as if it were common knowledge and replying to the inevitable "WTF?" responses by chiding everyone else to "get informed" and "do the research," without dropping a hint as to the source of her latest madness. I think it's that kind of behavior that should result in a "loss" per these rules.

[2theleft]

10. I think we have he same sister-in-law. n/t

[rrneck]

5. If you state your personal preference in the face of evidence you lose.

If you think you're never wrong, you're a loser.

[csziggy]

7. This needs to go in GD and Politics!

[Kali]

13. *COUGHmetaCOUGH*

[csziggy]

16. I don't visit there very often

I'm skeered to - they're mean in Meta!

[undeterred]

11. You can end any argument by clicking the back button after you're done typing.

[csziggy]

17. Yeah, LOTS of my long fiery messages disappear in the ether

When I look them over before clicking on the "Post my reply!" button. I get it all out and then channel Emily Litella.

[NightWatcher]

14. I prefer this method....