After I decided that this was going to be a largely useless reply to <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.215956-Someone-just-called-me-a-dumbass-How-not-to-fly-into-a-rage-over-every-internet-argument#7289646>this thread, I decided to make it an OP.
Debating on the internet is useless for two primary reasons. 1) There are no ground rules for debating on the internet. In a "proper" debating leagues (NFL in my case)the criterion for "winning" is laid out clearly, and there are judges to determine which of the debtor's has best met that. On the internet however, there are no rules, everything is permissible: "facts," anecdotes, spam, and sound "reasoning" is just a fraction of the arsenal an internettroll debater can use to "win."
But here we run into our second reason: what exactly constitutes as winning? In "proper" tournaments, advancing to the next roundbut only up-till the quarter-finals is a very tangible measure of success. But on the internet, it is left to the participants' and the spectators' fancy to decide the victor: trolls will consider the amount of responses they get, some will consider the amount of "thumbs-up" they get for their argument, some will only accept victory--or defeat--when their opponent surrenders, and while others might only take solace in the fact that their "reasoning" was enough to carry them to the podium---or it might be a concoction of these various reasons.
A third might be that "it's just not worth it." But unfortunately for many, their ego makes it well worth the effort.
So fellow Escapists, how do you "win" arguments--if at all--on the internet.
Personally: "This is not the mouth for these ears" said Zarathustra. And I heartily agree.
EDIT: If such a thread already exists, then I apologize for my laziness for not using the "search" option.
Debating on the internet is useless for two primary reasons. 1) There are no ground rules for debating on the internet. In a "proper" debating leagues (NFL in my case)the criterion for "winning" is laid out clearly, and there are judges to determine which of the debtor's has best met that. On the internet however, there are no rules, everything is permissible: "facts," anecdotes, spam, and sound "reasoning" is just a fraction of the arsenal an internet
But here we run into our second reason: what exactly constitutes as winning? In "proper" tournaments, advancing to the next round
A third might be that "it's just not worth it." But unfortunately for many, their ego makes it well worth the effort.
So fellow Escapists, how do you "win" arguments--if at all--on the internet.
Personally: "This is not the mouth for these ears" said Zarathustra. And I heartily agree.
EDIT: If such a thread already exists, then I apologize for my laziness for not using the "search" option.
