Internet Debates vs Real Life Debates

[Cailst]

We've had quite a few debates through the SWRP and probably most of us have had discussions on other forums. And most likely, we've had debates in real life.

Which do you prefer?

Do you prefer the anonymity of the internet? Where you can make statements without having to worry about your real life reputation being at stake? Or do you prefer when you know the people that you're arguing with and know that they aren't going to be disruptive just because they're anonymous? And do you like when you can instantly back up your arguments with links and then debate the accuracy of the links? Or do you prefer knowing everything beforehand and being sure that any personal gravitas will make those who disagree with you believe you? Also, do you like the longer waits where a discussion can take days or weeks and every sentence can be analyzed and discussed? Or is it better to have a discussion that lasts hours at the most and quick thinking is required to argue against potentially new information?

And are there any other considerations you have when engaging in debate with people?

 

[Padmé]

Though I have a different belief system and see things in a different light 9when compared to the general populace here), I don’t flaunt my views nor do I make others feel as though my views makes me superior. I prefer one on one debate- if one can call it that.
In fact I was just telling Nite the other day that my time on the plethora of forums that I frequent has really brought be closer to my core beliefs- not that I was ashamed of it to begin with.

I remember a lengthy VM that Brandon and I shared – a while back. It started out as a simple question. Next thing I know we were talking about Christianity. That is the system that I prefer- as opposed to the average large threads were folks just want to prove a point rather than hear out the other views.

At any rate, like Plato, I believe that wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something. If folks want to know something from me they can always ask. Similarly, I ask a lot of questions- Matty can attest to it-. If I feel like I need to know something from someone I ask >.<

 

[Jacques]

I like to debate in real life, cause even when I'm losing, I just sock that mutha****a in the face and I win! :CHappy

 

[Denzein]

In general I find IRL debates more intelligent. People aren't so try hard when debating face to face, it's harder to hide that scourge of the internet known as rage.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

There’s benefits to both. In real life, you’re at the mercy of what you know. If the other person you’re debating knows something that you don’t, that person may win that debate. That’s the way it should be. The more informed someone is on any given issue, the more likely they are to be successful in that debate. Of course, that’s if you’re debating solely on the merits of the argument. If you’re like me, you know how to win no matter what; there are tips and tricks for winning in a debate even if there’s a chance you’re wrong (which, obviously, I’m never).

A debate on the internet, though, is also a learning experience, not just in seeing what the other side is saying but in being able to do research in the midst of a debate. Now I’m discounting the anonymity factor in my case; my username is my name, so I own everything I say. Unless it’s a joke, I’ve always meant what I’ve said when I’ve said it (I make that point because there was a time in the history of this site when I was a conservative Republican.... yeah, I know, horrifying). That said, being able to debate when you don’t need an immediate response, and can take a few minutes or even longer to collect your thoughts, is great. It allows for a more well thought out and reasoned argument.

Another thing that benefits me is that I’m really good with words. If given the time to construct an argument, I know how to use words to my advantage. I can write things in particular ways that can mean the same thing that someone else might have meant, but are said in such a way where they seem to carry more weight and gravitas. That can strengthen my argument without any real substantive difference.

Other people who agree with you may bring up points that strengthen your argument that you didn’t even think of. That allows for a learning opportunity for you as well, and it’s almost like an unofficial team debate. It’s the closest thing to a community discussion than most people experience. Granted, that doesn’t work for everyone. If the point you’re arguing is that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage should be illegal, then most people on this site are going to descend upon you with the fury of God’s own thunder (or, if you're Sheo, the power of Thor's hammer). You reap what you sew in that regard, so you have to be prepared for the possibility that people aren’t going to agree with you and may be incredibly, passionately resistant to what you're saying.

So for a tl;dr, both real life debating and online debating have their merits if you know what you’re doing.

 

[Malcador]

I prefer the internet because I'm not rushed to make a point like if I were talking to someone in real life. Unless it's a chat room, but I am rarely on one. It's more of me trying to address the points the person I'm debating with better also, since if someone made several points at me right in front of me I'm bound to forget or lose track of what all he/she said and the debate derails into a "Repeat that" "What was that other thing you said?" questionnaire. It's also easier for me because I can use quotes and reread posts which gives me a minute to think about what they said.

Plus unlike real life, your opponent can't interrupt you. Almost everyone I have debated in real life about some issue or topic, including a couple family members interrupt me when I'm halfway done responding to what they said or trying to address a point not even letting finish what I'm saying before they start off and apply the broken record style of debating.

 

[BLADE]

At this point in my life, I've constructed an elaborate theory of debate based on my extensive experience. Nine years of competing at mock trial/debate, as well as being in a profession which is inherently premised on the notion that argument is the epistemological basis for truth. I've always said that I would one day start a thread on rhetoric and constructing effective arguments, and I may yet do that (probably in the interregnum when I am not drowning in diapers.)

Insofar as differences between styles of debate, debate is really a rather broad category and online debates themselves come in all shapes and sizes. I've been to fora where the debating culture is far more stringent and the admins actually monitor arguments for logical fallacies/inability to back up assertions, etc. There is a variety in the real-world that is also worth commenting on. Each has their merits.

 

[Matty]

I prefer debates where I can actually hear my opponents voice. I can gauge a proper response by feeding off of their emotion, tone, level of sarcasm etc...

Honestly, some of the deepest conversations/debates have occurred over xbox live. Me, my buddy and these five random dudes debated and discussed the socio-economic situation in the middle east while playing GTA IV once.

 

[Icaro]

internet debates are the most sad thing in the world. not because the arguing is pathetic (which is usually is), but because it baffles me why people care so much what some guy on the internet thinks. and if you care enough what someone you can't see, don't know, will never meet, thinks, that's sad.

 

[BLADE]

The same rationale could apply to things of great importance, you do realize?

And it's a hobby. It has no more intrinsic value than any other hobby. If it makes you happy, then that's it.

 

[Padmé]

Darn it Will, you beat me to it. lol

 

[jpchewy01]

I'm inclined to agree with Brandon and Prospero. Both forms of debate have their merits and I enjoy taking part in both.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

internet debates are the most sad thing in the world. not because the arguing is pathetic (which is usually is), but because it baffles me why people care so much what some guy on the internet thinks. and if you care enough what someone you can't see, don't know, will never meet, thinks, that's sad.

It’s not about the argument. It’s not about winning. It’s not about changing someone’s mind. If you’re debating online for that reason, then that’s the wrong reason. However, to cast aspersions onto the entire idea of online debating because of that is just ignorantly dumb. While you may not nor may you ever know the people who you are talking to on the internet, that doesn’t mean you can’t have a meaningful discussion with other intelligent people—regardless of whether you know their name as John Smith or MasterChiefFan47. It’s about an exchange of opinions, an exchange of ideas, an exchange of information. It’s about an open conversation with other intelligent people where you can share your worldview. It’s about a discussion that can actually allow you to learn things.

I’ve said on more than one occasion the true statement that this website has made countless people smarter. I’ve seen people, myself included, who used to not be all that intelligent about things such as politics, international relations, religion, society, etc., but conversations on SWRP with other intelligent people cultivated a learning experience for others that allowed them to, quite frankly, become better equipped to be an intelligent and free thinking person in this world. I'm sure SWRP was not the only factor in that for everyone—it wasn't the only factor for me—but to deny it as a factor is folly.

That’s not hyperbole. That’s not sentiment. That’s an observable fact over the 7 years I’ve been on this website, and it’s awesome.

Need I remind you as well that you are criticizing people on a Star Wars role-playing board. You are on a website whose purpose is an activity that society would mock, saying that interaction like this with people you can’t see, don’t know, and will never meet is weird and pathetic. Being cynical, however, makes neither them nor you intelligent. It just makes you a cynic for the sake of being a cynic, and someone with a high and mighty attitude that, quite frankly, makes me not want to interact with you—online or off.

I'm sure you don't care about that. That's just fine. We can agree to disagree, as reasonable adults do.

 

[BLADE]

I've often wondered when it was that earnestness became such a poisonous quality to have. I've said it before: cynicism is just despair masquerading as wisdom. Cosseted parochialism deigning itself worldliness. It's self imposed Procrustean blindness. It's tragic enough when cynicism inhibits one's personal growth but I often find that cynicism is akin to that slave morality Nietzsche spoke of. Not content with its own misery, it seeks to tear down people who for one reason or another continue to say yes to the world. I know I often come across as something of a dick, but this is a sincere bit of advice: you will seldom regret saying yes, be it to your friends, or family, or even to perfect strangers.

My point being that there's nothing that you really lose from exchanging ideas with someone on the internet. It can be a perfectly respectable medium like any other. The aim need not necessarily be conversion (and here I depart from Bac, though his statement was well-formula); it could be clarification, adaptation, or even a simple challenge. If you believe an idea is wrong, you have a moral responsibility not just to the community at large, but to your own conscience to defy it with all the tools and marvelous powers of reason.

I certainly hold little currency for those who would look down on me for wanting to exchange views with others on the internet (as if the medium makes any such discussion inherently more unserious.)

Of course, as Bac said, you may feel free to disagree.

Mazel tov either way.

 

[Orphen]

I like Debating online because of how things go, but realistically, i don't debate, like when someone presents an umbrella term like "Religeon is the cause of all war evar" I just state a list of facts saying that, that is wrong because X but religeon has indeed caused a lot of wars: example, example, example, example. I REALLY hate formal debate, i think it dennies common sense and logic, how you cannot talk about and source another person, because you are not that person, how you cannot develop a personal opinion about an act because you were not there. It's annoying >.< and I loathe people who use those arguments against me because they make no damn sense, they're also petty as hell. And are only about shutting someone down (sorry about the umbrella term, just my experiance on the issue.)

I enjoy personal one on one discussions, discussions as opposed to debates, especially when both sides are open to listening, learning, and adapting. Unlike most debaters i've met i'm open to saying "sorry i'm wrong, but now i know, cool thanks." And i come away enlightened. I live for the sharing of information. I think i've had a good day if i've tought someone something or even enlightened someone about something they enjoy and stoke their intruige for something a little more different or interesting than tha norm. On the flip side it's an AWESOME day when someone does that for me. ^_^

Edit: not gonna lie i thought this thread said "internet diabetes vs real life Diabetes"

 

[Icaro]

i just don't really care enough to question the validity of people's opinions. i assume everyone forms their opinions the same way i do, by reading all the sides and deciding what's for them.

you do you, i'll do me. why does it matter to me if we disagree?

 

[BLADE]

i just don't really care enough to question the validity of people's opinions. i assume everyone forms their opinions the same way i do, by reading all the sides and deciding what's for them.

you do you, i'll do me. why does it matter to me if we disagree?

You're honestly flattering yourself if you're saying that you approach your opinions by dispassionately considering "all sides:"

1. The material available on any given issue is necessarily circumscribed by any number of concepts referring to an amorphous limit on what is acceptable --videlicet this concept has been most memorably coined as the Overton Window.

2. It's really impossible to read (and be able to analyze) all sides. You can be very well-informed, but there will always be lacunae in your information. I have degrees on economics. There is still a huge number of papers, theories, concepts, etc. which I don't know much about and will likely never know much about.

3. Which brings me to my third point. We substitute what information we don't have with moral reasoning and our biases, which may flow from sound moral precepts or not.

That brings me to your second question. It matters because when ideas are challenged, they are either disproved or improved. Of course, there's a certain irony to this discussion because why would you even care enough to ostentatiously comment on a thread that you don't care about this sort of thing? Pro-tip: you're in one of dem' internet debatin' things right now.

As I said, you may feel free to not care, but others are certainly justified in caring if they wish.

 

[Green Ranger]

I prefer real life debates, because I win. Believe it or not, most Australians are morons.

...shut up, Bac.

 

[Ehrlich Mar]

As a general rule, I prefer real life debates. That's not to say that real life debates are BETTER. I think that internet debates do allow time for better constructed, more thoughtful statements to be made. That being said, the only qualm that I have with internet debates is that usually I don't know the person on the other end. I have few ways of knowing what kinds of arguments will persuade them, so I cannot appeal to them in the way that I am certain they would understand.

In addition, fruitful arguments tend to be give and take; we both bend a little having heard each other's logical perspectives. With a face-to-face encounter, I find it easier to identify if that exchange is actually occurring; if I'm just blowing air at a bloody-minded individual who cares nothing for what I said in the first place, I'm better off not wasting my time on them. In an internet debate, however, there is no way to validate whether anything one has said has actually affected the other individual in a meaningful way.

I'm not sure if those are compelling reasons, but that's why I tend to engage in real-life debates as opposed to internet-based ones.

 

[BLADE]

I prefer real life debates, because I win. Believe it or not, most Australians are morons.

To be fair, it was founded as a penal colony. To put it delicately (and beyond the ability of most Australians to decipher) the original stock was not the most fruitful.