Internet Debates vs Real Life Debates

[Ehrlich Mar]

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.

:CScool

 

[Green Ranger]

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.

Better to be born from a petty thief then a traitor to the crown. :bitchez

 

[BLADE]

Not a natural-born American, dear.

But a more stirring defense of being under the heel of an octogenarian inbred, I had not yet heard. :CHappy

 

[Ehrlich Mar]

It's that kind of talk that allowed the British Empire to last as long as it did.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Better to be born from a petty thief then a traitor to the crown. :bitchez

Funny how the traitors to the crown became the world's last great superpower.

 

[Orphen]

I dunno, i think what my buddy Icaro means is when things ciese to be a debate and become an argument, over something little and solvable. You must agree in some cases, especially from the point of the aggressor, not necissarill the defender, there is an image of "Why the hell to you CARE so much?" Sometimes things just aren't a big deal, but they explode, sixteen people pile up on either side and it becomes silly. I've seen to many to count, but I think the umbrella termanology doesn't help. Some people finf it hard to take critisism, synicism, and other peoples opinions that infringe their own. Everyone works differently. I wouldn't say I don't care, but I definatly don't take things over the internet personally.

To me the internet is a light hearted place where no-one can really hurt you, it's all just words on a screen. The people beyond it, until they bridge the gap and get to know you personally, don't really exist.

 

[Icaro]

cmon, you know i didn't literally mean "all information on all sides".

and yea, everyone justified in thinking what they want, and questioning what they want. just so happens it doesn't matter that much to me if other people don't have the same opinions as i do. thread called for discussion, i had something to say, i said it, and people question the validity of my opinion so i'll defend it. but notice im not questioning the validity of your stance at all, because you're perfectly welcome to think what you want. but maybe so am i or something? i dunno.

i am not a cynic, i don't believe all people ate motivated by self-interest, and i don't have a habitually negative outlook. when i have a negative outlook on something it's because i feel i have enough knowledge to form an opinion on it and the opinion happens to be negative. having a negative opinion on some things does not a cynicist make. i just take what i can from what i know, and that's where it ends. if you don't agree, ok, you may carry on not agreeing. it doesn't affect my opinion of you or anyone else. if you want to question my opinions, so be it, i'll defend it, or tell you how i reached that opinion if you would like to know.

i just don't feel like i need to change people's minds is all. that's where it starts and that's where it ends.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I dunno, i think what my buddy Icaro means is when things ciese to be a debate and become an argument, over something little and solvable. You must agree in some cases, especially from the point of the aggressor, not necissarill the defender, there is an image of "Why the hell to you CARE so much?" Sometimes things just aren't a big deal, but they explode, sixteen people pile up on either side and it becomes silly. I've seen to many to count, but I think the umbrella termanology doesn't help. Some people finf it hard to take critisism, synicism, and other peoples opinions that infringe their own. Everyone works differently. I wouldn't say I don't care, but I definatly don't take things over the internet personally.

To me the internet is a light hearted place where no-one can really hurt you, it's all just words on a screen. The people beyond it, until they bridge the gap and get to know you personally, don't really exist.

That's a generalization, though. When you generalize an entire conversational method on a particular medium in such a way, it ceases to be an intelligent argument and instead becomes an argument predicated on the false notion that all things are equal. That, however, is not the case. Ironically, it's that generalization that has sparked this particular back and forth -- or, to use your words, this "big deal."

 

[Green Ranger]

Funny how the traitors to the crown became the world's last great superpower.

The red dragon stirs. And I'm not talking about our prime minister. ZING!

 

[Shiuzu]

Canada's a power too eh...

 

[Brandon Rhea]

cmon, you know i didn't literally mean "all information on all sides".

and yea, everyone justified in thinking what they want, and questioning what they want. just so happens it doesn't matter that much to me if other people don't have the same opinions as i do. thread called for discussion, i had something to say, i said it, and people question the validity of my opinion so i'll defend it. but notice im not questioning the validity of your stance at all, because you're perfectly welcome to think what you want. but maybe so am i or something? i dunno.

i am not a cynic, i don't believe all people ate motivated by self-interest, and i don't have a habitually negative outlook. when i have a negative outlook on something it's because i feel i have enough knowledge to form an opinion on it and the opinion happens to be negative. having a negative opinion on some things does not a cynicist make. i just take what i can from what i know, and that's where it ends. if you don't agree, ok, you may carry on not agreeing. it doesn't affect my opinion of you or anyone else. if you want to question my opinions, so be it, i'll defend it, or tell you how i reached that opinion if you would like to know.

i just don't feel like i need to change people's minds is all. that's where it starts and that's where it ends.

Everyone is perfectly welcome to think what they want, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t question the validity of their stance. We live in a political and media era dominated by the notion of false equivalency. For example, if you are a channel like CNN, then if you report on a lie told by a Republican, you then go and find a lie told by a Democrat. Why? Because you don’t want the Republicans to say that you’re only calling Republicans liars, so you shield yourself by suggesting whatever Democratic lie you pointed out is equivalent to the Republican lie, i.e. the lie that you were actually reporting on.

I say that in order to say that just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean it’s valid. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t. We’ve simply become accustomed to this false notion that all points of view are perfectly wonderful and valid because that is what our political and media culture are shoving down our throats, whereas it’s simply not true.

tl;dr - nothing wrong with debating the validity of someone’s opinion if you don’t think that their opinion is valid. Whether it changes someone's mind or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that the exchange of ideas and opinions took place. Challenges to what we believe are the only way that we grow intellectually.

 

[Ehrlich Mar]

cmon, you know i didn't literally mean "all information on all sides".

and yea, everyone justified in thinking what they want, and questioning what they want. just so happens it doesn't matter that much to me if other people don't have the same opinions as i do. thread called for discussion, i had something to say, i said it, and people question the validity of my opinion so i'll defend it. but notice im not questioning the validity of your stance at all, because you're perfectly welcome to think what you want. but maybe so am i or something? i dunno.

i am not a cynic, i don't believe all people ate motivated by self-interest, and i don't have a habitually negative outlook. when i have a negative outlook on something it's because i feel i have enough knowledge to form an opinion on it and the opinion happens to be negative. having a negative opinion on some things does not a cynicist make. i just take what i can from what i know, and that's where it ends. if you don't agree, ok, you may carry on not agreeing. it doesn't affect my opinion of you or anyone else. if you want to question my opinions, so be it, i'll defend it, or tell you how i reached that opinion if you would like to know.

i just don't feel like i need to change people's minds is all. that's where it starts and that's where it ends.

I think that's a very...well, shall we say "considerate" standpoint. I mean, it's great that you're not trying to shape people into a replica of yourself. I guess the only thing that troubles me is that a debate shouldn't be an attack, if you understand my meaning. People shouldn't be called to "defend" their positions so much as explain them. When I'm in a discussion, I shouldn't feel pressured to win; if I lose, it should be because I had failed somewhere along the line in my reasoning or that I was misinformed, not that I was badgered into submission.

In any case, I feel like there is a responsibility as a human being to share what I've learned for the benefit of others. It's just a courtesy that one shows; if I have discovered something that will positively impact someone else's life, I have a moral responsibility to see that it is accessible to them, provided I have their best interest at heart. So even if one feels like one has nothing to gain from the conversation, it is still worthwhile provided that one has something to give.

 

[BLADE]

Well, Icaro and I talked it over MSN. I'll let him share his conclusions first. I haven't moved much from my first post, but it was an enlightening discussion anyhow. My kudos to him.

 

[Orphen]

I think that's a very...well, shall we say "considerate" standpoint. I mean, it's great that you're not trying to shape people into a replica of yourself. I guess the only thing that troubles me is that a debate shouldn't be an attack, if you understand my meaning. People shouldn't be called to "defend" their positions so much as explain them. When I'm in a discussion, I shouldn't feel pressured to win; if I lose, it should be because I had failed somewhere along the line in my reasoning or that I was misinformed, not that I was badgered into submission.

In any case, I feel like there is a responsibility as a human being to share what I've learned for the benefit of others. It's just a courtesy that one shows; if I have discovered something that will positively impact someone else's life, I have a moral responsibility to see that it is accessible to them, provided I have their best interest at heart. So even if one feels like one has nothing to gain from the conversation, it is still worthwhile provided that one has something to give.

-applause-
i like you, you get to stay.

Yeah brandon i'm inclined to agree with you. But Icaro is a long standing friend. So defy all reason or not, I'm on his side reguardless as to what umbrella termanology he made. Though this also calls to play I know he was making an overstatement on the issue, and didn't mean it word for word as 'exactly' it was typed. Though that's all it could be really taken by from anyone else.

 

[Icaro]

Pros and I agree that such discussions have the potential to derive value.

We disagree on whether it is likely there will be value.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Pros and I agree that such discussions have the potential to derive value.

We disagree on whether it is likely there will be value.

I think that with a discussion like this, as with anything in this world, you get what you make of it. You get what you put into it. If you contribute value, you will likely receive value in return. If you go into something not expecting value, or better yet assuming that you won't, odds are you won’t find it.

-applause-
i like you, you get to stay.

Yeah brandon i'm inclined to agree with you. But Icaro is a long standing friend. So defy all reason or not, I'm on his side reguardless as to what umbrella termanology he made. Though this also calls to play I know he was making an overstatement on the issue, and didn't mean it word for word as 'exactly' it was typed. Though that's all it could be really taken by from anyone else.

Loyalty is well and good, but you should stand with what is true and what is right. The person who said it, or who didn't, should not be a factor in that consideration.

 

[Ehrlich Mar]

Okay, long story short, I made a big mess of this post, so I'm just gonna say what I meant to say in the first place.

I think that with a discussion like this, as with anything in this world, you get what you make of it. You get what you put into it. If you contribute value, you will likely receive value in return. If you go into something not expecting value, odds are you won’t find it.

^ I agree entirely.

 

[BLADE]

That brings me to a new point. One advantage of online discussions (at least as I see it) is that there's no distorting effects (at least to some) like affection, etc. to get in the way of the logic. Certainly there's none of the oratorical and rhetorical tropes dealing with tone, body language, etc. that can dilute the impact of purely the argument.

On the other side, I suppose there are some people that say this will lead to too much parsing, but I respectfully disagree. Language is a powerful thing. It should be treated cautiously.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I think that's a very...well, shall we say "considerate" standpoint. I mean, it's great that you're not trying to shape people into a replica of yourself. I guess the only thing that troubles me is that a debate shouldn't be an attack, if you understand my meaning. People shouldn't be called to "defend" their positions so much as explain them. When I'm in a discussion, I shouldn't feel pressured to win; if I lose, it should be because I had failed somewhere along the line in my reasoning or that I was misinformed, not that I was badgered into submission.

In any case, I feel like there is a responsibility as a human being to share what I've learned for the benefit of others. It's just a courtesy that one shows; if I have discovered something that will positively impact someone else's life, I have a moral responsibility to see that it is accessible to them, provided I have their best interest at heart. So even if one feels like one has nothing to gain from the conversation, it is still worthwhile provided that one has something to give.

You raise an interesting point there. On the one hand, the idea of defending your argument is not a bad thing and is not irreconcilable with what you just said. It depends on how you’re using the word defend. If you’re using it in the sense that you need to back up and justify what you’re saying, then that’s good. You can’t just make a claim without justifying it in a conversation like this. If you’re feeling pressured to defend yourself, though, and you feel the need to defend against what seems like an attack (civil or otherwise), then that by default means that someone is on offense. If someone is on offense, then by default that means you are now in a discussion where at least one person has decided that the goal is to win.

 

[Icaro]

I think that with a discussion like this, as with anything in this world, you get what you make of it. You get what you put into it. If you contribute value, you will likely receive value in return. If you go into something not expecting value, or better yet assuming that you won't, odds are you won’t find it.

could be. i just have a hard time discerning intrinsic value in anything. either everything has value or nothing does, or there is some secret council i haven't heard of who decides where to draw the line.

i wish i could reason it, i just can't.