Agreeable Argument Etiquette

[The Wykydtron]

I kinda just don't post in any serious threads anymore, my post rate has bombed so hard recently because of it. You know, feminism threads? Those types of things. It doesn't agree with me since I like to joke around a lot and none of my posts are to be taken massively seriously. Guess how that shit goes down in them threads yo'

My advice:

Step 1: Don't be a dick

There is no Step 2.

This is a hard step to master with some people but with hard work and dedication you might get through an argument without resorting to the "you uncultured fuck!" card when in a ye olde sub vs dub war. RIP Escapist anime forum, never forget. That was almost a thing.

I might be a difficult person to argue with sometimes. I might make a point then spend a few posts even wondering whether I agree with the first point I made while also debating with the other guy, then some other random thoughts will pop up in my head that I might add. Once I convinced myself to agree with the guy I was arguing with no additional input from him. I didn't even notice, it was a manga related thread I believe.

"So what you're saying is that you're agreeing with me?"

*rereads post*

"Yes, I do that sometimes >.>"

Sometimes I wish I could take things seriously. When I say I can't, I do mean can't not just can but won't. It's a self defence mechanism, tragic really.

 

[Smooth Operator]

There are 3 basic problems that will never be overcome in argument on forums like these:
- Text conveys no emotion. Anything you write someone else can interpret as a joke or anger because they don't get the context from which it came, so depending on the mood of the reader the interpretations can be wildly different

- You can't have a conversations with a thousand people. It's just a plain clusterfuck of noise crossing over in all directions and no rhyme or reason to anything.

- We are all strangers. Whatever it is you are saying I have no context for, I can't tell if you have any legitimate experience or just making it all up. I can't tell if your bias comes from political, religious, regional, corporate, or age interests. I could be talking to a child and just have no bearing on why it is so difficult for them to comprehend the simplest concepts, or it could be someone elderly who doesn't care, or someone who simply doesn't understand the language well enough, or someone in a bad mood who wants to be difficult.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

Text conveys no emotion. Anything you write someone else can interpret as a joke or anger because they don't get the context from which it came, so depending on the mood of the reader the interpretations can be wildly different

This gets said a lot but I don't know how much I buy it. True, there's greater risk of being misinterpreted, but that just puts the onus on you to be clear in your wording. If text couldn't convey emotion, we wouldn't have literature.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I disagree completely. Arguing is one of the best ways to exchange ideas and concepts. Arguing is not necessarily hostile, it can simply mean to present reasons for or against something. To do this in any sort of abbreviated form is utterly useless, because an opinion is not going to convince anyone simply by itself. There needs to be reasons and evidence that back up the points made, and many times potential counter arguments can be anticipated and must be addressed in advance to facilitate quick discussion. If this wasn't done, then the counter arguments would inevitably be brought up and need to be refuted or elaborated anyway, and it would just slow things down.

Honestly I think people don't go into enough depth most of the time. If your post just has a sentence or two, most of the time it's hardly worth reading, because there isn't a whole lot that can be expressed in such little text. A lot of the time, after I've read the first page I'll skip most of the shorter posts and just read the longer ones that have more depth, or just follow the arguments.

 

[K12]

Rule 1:

Don't be an arsehole, even if someone else is an arsehole to you first.

Rule 2:

Argue about one (or at least no more than 3) things at a time. Depth is better than breadth (giggidy) and it's unfair to make 50 different statements and expect someone to refute (or even respond to) all of them.

Rule 3:

Don't jump to conclusions. There is no point in arguing against a point that your "opponent" doesn't hold. You might prefer to be arguing against a loopy, frothy-mouthed, man-hating radical Feminist or tinfoil-hat wearing, right-wing, kill spree waiting to happen but you probably aren't. Give people the benefit of the doubt where possible.


Rule 4:

It's not about "winning". If I manage to make someone better understand a point they previously hadn't considered or identified with then that's a win. Being able to point an apparent inconsistency and then going "AHA GOT YOU" is just you doing the philosophical equivalent of cummming in my face.

 

[Sampler]

I'm trying to apply these to my arguments, at least going forward:

Spoiler: Click to view the image and then click the image for the larger version you can actually read

[https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/]

So far it's been quite effective, I spend three or four minutes thinking through all the logical fallacy's in the argument, decide it's not going to make any difference, close the tab and move on..

 

[Smooth Operator]

This gets said a lot but I don't know how much I buy it. True, there's greater risk of being misinterpreted, but that just puts the onus on you to be clear in your wording. If text couldn't convey emotion, we wouldn't have literature.

Ok then let me be more specific, you gain no insight into the tone of voice or body language of the person speaking to you, which means you can attribute any imaginary state you want to the conversation.

And if you actually compare literature it should be clear that 90% of their text is dedicated to describing a scene long before they deliver any words spoken. If they were lacking the descriptive part we would simply have no idea what the context to their interaction is, who was speaking and in what fashion... which is exactly what goes on with forums.

 

[mysecondlife]

There are a lot of lengthy arguments but those are arguments that I can choose not to be involved in. So my suggestion? Pick your battles carefully and leave when appropriate. For me its not about WHAT I'm arguing about, but WHO I am arguing with. If I deem you as a pleasant and reasonable person who I happen to disagree with, chances are I'm going to have stimulating conversation. If you're the exact opposite you're most likely going to stick your finger out of your ass, into your ear-hole and sing "lalalalalalala" anyways.

I have one or two (or even three) Escapists on my list who I would rather not converse with and my forum experience is better for it.

OT: I have two "rules" or whatever you'd call them when I am engaging in online verbal fistacuffs. If people break one of the two rules (and I do follow my own rules...or at least I try my best with #2 since it's kind of gray), I drop out of the conversation.

Rule #1: Don't be that guy that changes my quote and then says "Fixed that for you". (Also, I would like to mention that I have changed my allegiance to Green Bay Packers due to greatness of Aaron Rodgers and his discount double check belt. GO PACKERS!)

I agree with this Packers fan. I would also like to add "/thread"
If you want to be lazy about voicing your opinion and disregard others' opinion at same time, this would be a great way to do it.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Right there with you, OP.

Kind of what's been keeping me from lurking here recently...just don't have the heart to keep up with the arbitrary arguments. Unnecessary stress. Meh.

As for a suggestion or two?

1. Don't be an overtly passive aggressive jackass. Sort of a big one.

2. Try...try to be understanding. An extra minute or two of deliberation and, dare I say, empathy, can go a long way toward making a conversation/disagreement less of an exercise in impotent frustration for both parties and more of a mutual learning experience.

3. Don't-

Rule 4:

It's not about "winning". If I manage to make someone better understand a point they previously hadn't considered or identified with then that's a win. Being able to point an apparent inconsistency and then going "AHA GOT YOU" is just you doing the philosophical equivalent of cummming in my face.

...Nevermind. /thread. Right there.

Some folks hereabouts are increeeedibly guilty of doing this sort of thing and it really quickly makes it easy to, not outright ignore, but pay a lot less attention to their posts.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

1. As has already been said, don't be a passive aggressive tool.

2. Don't change the subject, then later on tell me I'm the one who's changing the subject.
2.5. Don't accuse people of shit they straight up didn't do or say.

3. Don't go "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT I'M NOT READING PAST THIS POINT OMFG END OF CONVERSATION." That's a jackass move.

4/5.

Rule 3:

Don't jump to conclusions. There is no point in arguing against a point that your "opponent" doesn't hold. You might prefer to be arguing against a loopy, frothy-mouthed, man-hating radical Feminist or tinfoil-hat wearing, right-wing, kill spree waiting to happen but you probably aren't. Give people the benefit of the doubt where possible.

Rule 4:

It's not about "winning". If I manage to make someone better understand a point they previously hadn't considered or identified with then that's a win. Being able to point an apparent inconsistency and then going "AHA GOT YOU" is just you doing the philosophical equivalent of cummming in my face.

Legend. To expand on this, don't start talking about said people as if the person you're talking to is meant to defend them. If I make a point, then you start going on about the opinions of other people, you're just avoiding the topic.


To expand on your rule 4, it's not even about 'winning', it's about testing one idea against another. Being intellectually dishonest, misrepresenting the point someone else is making, lying about facts, all serve to make you a giant arsehole.
We've all been taught "how to win an arguement against X", but we're not taught to think "maybe my arguement is wrong". Calm your e-peen, rub two ideas together using logic, and see which one crumbles first.

And as the OP said, be succinct. 9 times out of 10, your point doesn't need 1000 words to be understood. Shorten that shit and stay on point.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF FUCKING GOD

DON'T

SEPERATE

EVERY

FUCKING

POST

INTO

TEN

SEPERATE

QUOTES

Reply to the whole damn thing, or move the focus onto one or two points, don't turn it into 12 different arguements.

 

[tippy2k2]

OT: I have two "rules" or whatever you'd call them when I am engaging in online verbal fistacuffs. If people break one of the two rules (and I do follow my own rules...or at least I try my best with #2 since it's kind of gray), I drop out of the conversation.

Rule #1: Don't be that guy that changes my quote and then says "Fixed that for you". (Also, I would like to mention that I have changed my allegiance to Green Bay Packers due to greatness of Aaron Rodgers and his discount double check belt. GO PACKERS!)

I agree with this Packers fan. I would also like to add "/thread"
If you want to be lazy about voicing your opinion and disregard others' opinion at same time, this would be a great way to do it.

The other guy put down that I like to eat babies for Satan but you....THAT'S crossing the line!!!! I would expect that type of dirty play from a Lions fan...

One day my Vikings will rise from the ashes and like a beautiful but deadly phoenix, will burn all the non-believers! Then A Rodg can discount double choke on a sandwich as the Vikings become the first Super Bowl winning team to play in their own stadium (that's the 2017/2018 season for those of you not paying attention).

#skolvikings

...also

Spoiler

AND FOR THE LOVE OF FUCKING GOD

DON'T

SEPERATE

EVERY

FUCKING

POST

INTO

TEN

SEPERATE

QUOTES

Reply to the whole damn thing, or move the focus onto one or two points, don't turn it into 12 different arguments.

Amen to that!

 

[the_dramatica]

You guys argue way too fucking much. Way too fucking much.

There is no point in a video game connoisseur community existing without critical positions or ideas.

 

[visiblenoise]

I don't really get into arguments on forums, but I always get pissed off when I see someone respond to someone else's post by deconstructing it line by line - literally quoting one sentence, saying something, then quoting the next sentence. It just seems awfully petty (particularly when the original post wasn't in list form), and inevitably runs the risk of taking someone's post too literally.

 

[Asita]

There's really a very simple rule of thumb, and that's to give the other person as much respect as you yourself would like to be shown. This does not mean 'walk on eggshells' it means 'don't be condescending', 'explain what you mean if your point isn't getting across'[footnote]Corrolary: If a person is arguing from a faulty premise, explain the flaw. This would mean - for the sake of example - that "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" should be met with "the evolutionary model shows species splitting. We didn't evolve from modern apes, we share a common ancestor. It's like a family tree in reverse", rather than "goody, another creationist who couldn't be bothered to pick up a biology textbook".[/footnote], 'assume the person is arguing in good faith', and 'try to understand what they're arguing', and - and this is very important - do not try to infer an ulterior motive.

Seriously, take a good hard look at a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice spat some day. Discussion cannot and will not take place so long as the parties involved insist on viewing each other as backwards misogynists who think women should be kept barefoot and pregnant and heartless hedonists who'd sooner commit murder than take responsibility for their lifestyle (respectively). That is not representative of either party, it's vilification used to present the opposing position as nothing less than obviously deplorable if not outright evil. It is only when both sides understand that the other side is not monstrous but instead has a different set of priorities[footnote]Pro-Lifers prioritize the life of the fetus, Pro-Choicers prioritize the [prospective] mother's bodily autonomy[/footnote], that actual discussion and debate can begin. If that mutual understanding isn't present, then more often than not, the dialogue tends strongly towards one or both sides trying to characterize the respective positions thusly:

Spoiler

 

[Frission]

I like well organized, logical arguments which are well sourced, although I think probably everyone does. I would like to say that I only dislike a post due to the quality of their arguments and their content, but personally I find it annoying when people cut up posts.

I don't really get into arguments on forums, but I always get pissed off when I see someone respond to someone else's post by deconstructing it line by line - literally quoting one sentence, saying something, then quoting the next sentence. It just seems awfully petty (particularly when the original post wasn't in list form), and inevitably runs the risk of taking someone's post too literally.

Yup, especially if they cut out anything they don't like or want to address, since it's dishonest and it's frustrating to post with them. Personal preferences aside, cut up posts make it difficult to take a post as a whole and should only really be used when the other poster has created a wall of text that is impossible to respond to as a whole.

Wall of texts are annoying especially because all arguments between the same posters seem to devolve into longer and longer posts.

 

[Guffe]

The thing I find difficult when arguing is something my boss told me at work. I believe I have become better at it, but this mainly has to do with ideological and such stuff, not when someone has a fact wrong and you just, politely, correct the person.

But it's these few words: You don't have to accept what another person thinks, but just try to understand it.
This has become clear when talking about "stuff I like", people usually mock me for my taste in stuff and very seldom seem to understand that people have different opinions and taste. That one line that's bold in the middle, very important for me nowadays!