Debates on the internet -- is there any bigger waste of time?
- Thread starter Kanatatsu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Its only worthwhile if people are actually debating. What you usually see on the internet is arguing. Or, to be more precise, yelling and going "NA NA NA" with their hands over their ears.
It doesn't help that most "debates", especially on this site, are over stupid things that are nearly completely opinion based AND without any real consequence (X game is good because of blank! No, it's bad because of blank!). No consensus will ever be reached, because neither has any reason, or any desire, to be "wrong". Couple that with the natural geek desire to "win" every debate they get into, and you have a situation where no one actually learns anything but get to stroke their chins and pretend they are smart.
Honestly, I don't believe that a real debate can be if the debaters cannot see each other. Preferably in the same room. Anonymity does nothing but make it easier to ignore whatever it is the other person is saying.
It doesn't help that most "debates", especially on this site, are over stupid things that are nearly completely opinion based AND without any real consequence (X game is good because of blank! No, it's bad because of blank!). No consensus will ever be reached, because neither has any reason, or any desire, to be "wrong". Couple that with the natural geek desire to "win" every debate they get into, and you have a situation where no one actually learns anything but get to stroke their chins and pretend they are smart.
Honestly, I don't believe that a real debate can be if the debaters cannot see each other. Preferably in the same room. Anonymity does nothing but make it easier to ignore whatever it is the other person is saying.
OP, for the record, I agree with this guy:
I've had lots of discussions here that have given me a broader perspective on things I thought I knew everything about, particularly in the R&P board. I don't spend much time on other sites talking to people, but I've seen that it's at least possible to have respectable, informative discussion and rational debate on the internet.Regnes said:
I find that there's an opposite effect in real life debate (though plenty of people are willing to ignore what you have to say no matter what medium you communicate with them in). Because you are face to face with the person, usually sitting near them in a room you have no intention of leaving soon, there can be a lot of pressure to say agreeable things, or present slightly skewed versions of your own opinion that are more appealing to their opponent - indeed, people might just keep their mouth shut. This effect is easiest to observe when you're having a conversation about something with a friend and another friend walks in and unwittingly gives a contrary opinion. Sometimes you can almost feel the tonal shift in the conversation while you and your friend backpedal and try to reconcile the differing viewpoints so you can all be in agreement, or at least mostly in agreement. Being a good speaker and a good listener is a skill, and when people have it, neither anonymity nor peer pressure can interrupt their discussion.Ordinaryundone said:
While I'm at it - I get that this part of your post is more about the fact that people are more interested in sounding smart by ranting about something there's no right answer about than learning anything, but I would like to say something about these "opinion based" topics. (BTW, this isn't just aimed at you, so ignore me if you already know what I'm talking about. I just like to talk about this when I can and when it comes up.)Ordinaryundone said:
Everyone knows that any given statement can be objective or subjective, where objective means that there is a precise and uniformly agreed upon criteria for determining whether it's true or false, and subjective means that whether it's true or false is entirely up to the person you're asking. What people forget about most of the time, however, is that there's a 3rd category these statements might fall into called "normative." Normative statements are ones that are clearly not entirely up to the person you ask, but ones for which it's difficult to determine how you might decide it's true or false. For these statements, we defer to a normative standard of evaluation and compare the statement to it. Confusing? Examples will help:
The statement "Brendan Fraser is in the movie 'Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D.'" is objective. We know exactly what we need to do to figure out if that's true - we generally understand what it means for a person to be "in" a movie, and we could determine if Brendan Fraser qualifies by simply watching it.
The statement "I hate 'Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D.'" is a subjective statement. Whether it's true depends entirely on whether the person who says it thinks it is.
The statement "'Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D' is a better film than 'Star Wars: A New Hope.'" is a normative statement. If you heard me say this (assuming you've seen the god-awful Journey movie and Star Wars), you would not only disagree with them, but you would say I am wrong. There's a reason for that. This is because there's a generally agreed upon (though admittedly vague and nebulous) standard to which most people appeal to when assessing the worth of a film. You talk about special effects and acting and cinematography and things like that, and within those there are even deeper normative questions about what qualifies as good acting or whatever.
I know what you're thinking - these "normative standards" are ultimately made up by people, and since they change with the whim of those same people, they too are subjective. Well, maybe so, maybe not - it's complicated. But if nothing else could convince you that there is and should be a distinct class of statement different from both the subjective and the objective, it's this: essays. If you've ever been in school, you've probably written an essay or two. When your teacher gives you a grade on it, they're making a statement about how well you did on that assignment. Would you say that statement is objective or subjective? If it's objective, then why do different teachers grade the same papers differently, even though both evaluations might be fair? That would be like two different people solving the same math problem for different answers, and trying to say that both are right. But if it's subjective, then what right would you have to object if that teacher gave you all F's? If that happened, you would be right to argue that what you wrote was worth more than that - and you would likely refer to a normative standard of evaluation to justify your argument. Luckily, many teachers provide just such a standard - a rubric.
The point of all that bull shit was to say that when people argue about "opinion based" topics, they may actually be arguing about normative statements. So when someone says "this game is bad because 'blank,'" they could be right to say that, and his opponent's reply could be valid. Conversation doesn't need to just stop whenever it's not clear how to figure out the right answer. It's a mistake to call all things that aren't simply true or false "subjective" and let every such statement stand as reasonable as the rest. So the next time someone tells you the Jonas Brother's are our generation's Beatles, you can feel justified telling them they're fucking thick.
The statement "Brendan Fraser is in the movie 'Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D.'" is objective. We know exactly what we need to do to figure out if that's true - we generally understand what it means for a person to be "in" a movie, and we could determine if Brendan Fraser qualifies by simply watching it.
The statement "I hate 'Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D.'" is a subjective statement. Whether it's true depends entirely on whether the person who says it thinks it is.
The statement "'Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D' is a better film than 'Star Wars: A New Hope.'" is a normative statement. If you heard me say this (assuming you've seen the god-awful Journey movie and Star Wars), you would not only disagree with them, but you would say I am wrong. There's a reason for that. This is because there's a generally agreed upon (though admittedly vague and nebulous) standard to which most people appeal to when assessing the worth of a film. You talk about special effects and acting and cinematography and things like that, and within those there are even deeper normative questions about what qualifies as good acting or whatever.
I know what you're thinking - these "normative standards" are ultimately made up by people, and since they change with the whim of those same people, they too are subjective. Well, maybe so, maybe not - it's complicated. But if nothing else could convince you that there is and should be a distinct class of statement different from both the subjective and the objective, it's this: essays. If you've ever been in school, you've probably written an essay or two. When your teacher gives you a grade on it, they're making a statement about how well you did on that assignment. Would you say that statement is objective or subjective? If it's objective, then why do different teachers grade the same papers differently, even though both evaluations might be fair? That would be like two different people solving the same math problem for different answers, and trying to say that both are right. But if it's subjective, then what right would you have to object if that teacher gave you all F's? If that happened, you would be right to argue that what you wrote was worth more than that - and you would likely refer to a normative standard of evaluation to justify your argument. Luckily, many teachers provide just such a standard - a rubric.
The point of all that bull shit was to say that when people argue about "opinion based" topics, they may actually be arguing about normative statements. So when someone says "this game is bad because 'blank,'" they could be right to say that, and his opponent's reply could be valid. Conversation doesn't need to just stop whenever it's not clear how to figure out the right answer. It's a mistake to call all things that aren't simply true or false "subjective" and let every such statement stand as reasonable as the rest. So the next time someone tells you the Jonas Brother's are our generation's Beatles, you can feel justified telling them they're fucking thick.
Actually yes. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.336694-Doing-nothing-Nothing-at-all] You can waste your time in a more meaningless fashion if you try.
You could whine about it and maybe end up in a quotefest debate over wasting your time on the internet. Come on Escapist, quote the OP and get him to debate you here... I want to see it...
[sub][sub]Moo! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9iIgQN5uZE&feature=related][/sub][/sub]
[sub][sub]Moo! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9iIgQN5uZE&feature=related][/sub][/sub]
I don't remember who said it but arguing on the internet is like the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded. I know that's offensive but it is an apt comparison. However I think that this is more referential to arguments with the internet subculture (memes, anonymity, being an ass.) then a discussion that just happens to take place on the internet. Just because it is on the internet doesn't invalidate it, that would be like saying anything you talk about on the phone or through text messages is worthless. So debating on the internet, totally fine and just as worthwhile as debating and discussing any other way. It's stupid when you bring in the tropes and stupid baggage associated with the internet.
Maybe but it can be nice way to spend spare time. Also, when I have a shitty day it's therapeutic to take it out on the people of the Internet.
If there is I can't think of one. I've never seen a good reason to debate on the internet, it usually just boils down to a two opinionated groups of people yelling at each other ending with no change of opinion or new found respect for those that disagree but only anger and hurt feelings.
Well if you learn something or see something in a new light/change the way you view something I dont see how thats a waste of time.
But then again did i really want to know what sub genre of a genres sub genre the song I heard last night and sort of liked falls into.... no I dont really care. Most songs on youtube seem to have battles raging on all of them as to which genre they fit into.
But then again did i really want to know what sub genre of a genres sub genre the song I heard last night and sort of liked falls into.... no I dont really care. Most songs on youtube seem to have battles raging on all of them as to which genre they fit into.
