Nitpicking: Forum Debate Etiquette

[daveman247]

You have a problem with people asking you to give supporting evidence to a given argument?

My lil' pet peeve would have to be people willing to loudly proclaim something several times over but fail to ever give supporting evidence.

You got a source for that?

 

[FearTheSkorpion]

a few things, a few.

-How people are very literal, you have to put "IMO" at the end of everything otherwise they jump on you for saying "X is everything ever, of all time".

- People who demand sources before they even consider your argument. I'm sorry, but i just don't find research fun. I get enough of that being a student

You have a problem with people asking you to give supporting evidence to a given argument?

Actually, yes, some of us do. More often than not, my arguments consist of plain common sense, and I can't really post a wikipedia link to "common sense" without coming off as bad or worse than the person I am debating.

Also, I would ask that you not reply to someone else's post with a dismissive, condescending rhetorical question. That happens to be something I, and many others, have a problem with.

Edit: I quoted your post before you added your second statement, which I completely agree with. However, my point still stands.

It was actually a serious question that, lo and behold, obtained a serious answer. So I would ask you not to look for hostility where it isn't to be found.

While i agree with you about the hostility thing, you could also try to not write a post in a manner that will be taken as hostile, using the phrase "lo and behold" for example, may come across as hostile and condescending.

It's honestly just a tendency to add more personal voice to my writing than I probably should. So I suppose I should probably tone it down just a tad for internet related nonsense.

I apologize for taking your statement as hostile, but I think this means you understand why I dislike posts like that. They have a tendency to spark anger, which is returned, and the "debate" quickly degenerates into a shouting match. I also post with "voice" sometimes, but I find it usually provokes angry responses, so I try to avoid that except with friends.

 

[daveman247]

People that take everything far too seriously.

I very rarely make a serious post so most of them are poking fun at something and some muppet quotes me with a serious retort to a comment I made that was obvious to the blind was done in jest.

As long as its not sarcasm, thats a little hard to read in text

Yes i have fell into that trap sometimes....

 

[-Samurai-]

I just hate that everyone has to argue about everything. Some people are just incapable of letting a differing opinion go unanswered.

 

[daveman247]

I do, actually!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.362443-Atheism-Shouldnt-Exist?page=1

Short story: Poster believes Atheism to be something that it isn't. I give definitions and reasons why he/she is incorrect. and he/she ignores the evidence given in favor of contining to trumpet it's own post.

Damn it! Should've known!

I suppose its fine when you are making wild statements/ talking facts. But an opinion/ common sense should not require them.

Then again, one persons common sense is anothers revelation...

 

[Zen Toombs]

-snip-

While it can be useful at times I find that I really, really hate when people quote me and pick my post apart piece by piece by splitting up the quote. -snip-

1. Some of the counterpoints are brief quips that are either purely dismissive or borderline trolling in nature
2. It can break the argument up too much so that certain points are missed entirely and you are no longer arguing about the same thing
3. When done in excess it can be quite jarring on the senses and can make counter arguments more difficult to construct due to the format butchering of your argument

So yeah, anyone else have any forum posting pet-peeves like this?

If someone takes this OP apart I will be very cross

I agree with this one, although splitting up posts doesn't bother me quite as much.

What really breaks my Zen is when someone says that I'm saying the opposite of what I actually stated. As far as I can tell, a person would only do this because they did not fully read the post they are quoting (which seems silly) or because they're trolling. Example for illustration:

True Communism isn't all that terrible for X, Y and Z. Also, the USSR and "Communist China" aren't actually Communist for A, B and C reasons.
However, I still think that Communism wouldn't really work well.

You want us to be just like China! Police states for everyone!

......

 

[FearTheSkorpion]

a few things, a few.

-How people are very literal, you have to put "IMO" at the end of everything otherwise they jump on you for saying "X is everything ever, of all time".

- People who demand sources before they even consider your argument. I'm sorry, but i just don't find research fun. I get enough of that being a student

You have a problem with people asking you to give supporting evidence to a given argument?

Actually, yes, some of us do. More often than not, my arguments consist of plain common sense, and I can't really post a wikipedia link to "common sense" without coming off as bad or worse than the person I am debating.

Also, I would ask that you not reply to someone else's post with a dismissive, condescending rhetorical question. That happens to be something I, and many others, have a problem with.

Edit: I quoted your post before you added your second statement, which I completely agree with. However, my point still stands.

It was actually a serious question that, lo and behold, obtained a serious answer. So I would ask you not to look for hostility where it isn't to be found.

While i agree with you about the hostility thing, you could also try to not write a post in a manner that will be taken as hostile, using the phrase "lo and behold" for example, may come across as hostile and condescending.

It's honestly just a tendency to add more personal voice to my writing than I probably should. So I suppose I should probably tone it down just a tad for internet related nonsense.

I apologize for taking your statement as hostile, but I think this means you understand why I dislike posts like that. They have a tendency to spark anger, which is returned, and the "debate" quickly degenerates into a shouting match. I also post with "voice" sometimes, but I find it usually provokes angry responses, so I try to avoid that except with friends.

And as they grew to understand one another, there was peace throughout the land, and all was right with the world!

Happy faces!

This is why I created an account on the Escapist. I could count on one hand how many other sites on the internet could have ended a comment discussion this peacefully, and I'd only need two of the fingers.

 

[Right Hook]

Are there any behaviors that really piss you off or catch you flatfooted when you encounter them in a forum-based debate?

I'm sure you are used to being caught flatfooted in debates, you are after all very poor at them.

Obviously most of us would agree that shallow points coupled by poor grammar/spelling is always annoying, but I want to address problems that stem from conscious decisions in the way people post.

It's funny how you talk about the conscious decisions people make in the way they post, maybe you should focus on your many unconscious mistakes first.

While it can be useful at times I find that I really, really hate when people quote me and pick my post apart piece by piece by splitting up the quote. I understand some may like having the ability to clearly argue different points separate from the larger argument but in many cases one of the following will happen:

I'm not surprised you dislike this, you hate the idea that I can so deftly devastate every part of your argument with my genius intellect in one post.

1. Some of the counterpoints are brief quips that are either purely dismissive or borderline trolling in nature

While I'm sure someone like you would see them that way.

2. It can break the argument up too much so that certain points are missed entirely and you are no longer arguing about the same thing

No, clearly we are arguing the fact that you hate to debate because you always lose. I'm sorry that I'm clearly superior.

3. When done in excess it can be quite jarring on the senses and can make counter arguments more difficult to construct due to the format butchering of your argument

Haha, jarring? It's not jarring, it is presented clear as day, sorry you are too slow to keep up.

So yeah, anyone else have any forum posting pet-peeves like this?

If someone takes this OP apart I will be very cross

I'm completely joking btw. Sorry for breaking it up but you basically forced me too

I personally don't mind too much when someone breaks down a few points of my argument but I agree that nitpicking the whole thing is friggin ridiculous. Really though as long as the debate is friendly and civil it doesn't bother me. Unfortunately I think we all know that a lot of times it's just the other guy trying to prove how dazzlingly smart he is and how much of a moron we obviously are. I seriously just tell the other guy I'm done debating with him if he starts being a dick because you'll never win an argument with a dick, he's always right, NO MATTER WHAT.

 

[DeltaEdge]

When people attack your clearly stated IMO posts. When I say this, I mean not for things that are factual, but for heavily opinionated things i.e., sample post: "I hate plums because they are gross" sample response post: "You are quite the idiot aren't you. Plums have the best consistency of any fruit in the fruitimal kingdom and if you like any other fruits, then you are a hypocrite. A Christian hypocrite! An American Christian Cowbow Hypocrite!" As long as your opinion isn't based around something factual like a racial equality and claiming that one race is superior, then your personal opinion isn't really up for debate.

When people change your text in your quote and say "There, fixed it for you".

Seriously...I fucking hate that and I have no clue why it bothers me so much.

I completely agree. I think it's because it indicates a complete lack of respect for what you were trying to get across.

My own biggest peeve is the people who are generally condescending throughout the debate. I'm not sure what causes them to behave this way, but I seriously doubt they can talk to people like that in real life and not get punched in the face.

Close second are the people who believe that cursing a lot will make you sound smarter, more mature, cover up the fact they haven't a clue what they're talking about, etc. Personally, I never curse, but that's my own decision and I'm fine with people that don't agree with that. However, these people are abusing the language, and it really peeves me, especially when they use their cursing to compensate for how badly they're losing the argument.

I actually go to a website called vizzed.com and on their forums, they don't approve of cursing. Pretty nice to see people actually putting thought into making their posts curse free and practicing some restraint with their language.

 

[Filiecs]

I don't like it when people insult one another. It breeds hate and leads to mudfests because it destroys any ethos that the poster had. Just because you disagree with them does not mean you should disrespect them, even if most people think they are wrong.
Also, I wish that, when debating, people would treat the opposing opinion as a valid argument to be decustructed instead of just calling the person an idiot and saying that he is the scum of society.

 

[Fappy]

-Snip-

...

You just made it on the list.

This is a bad thing.

 

[Right Hook]

-Snip-

...

You just made it on the list.

This is a bad thing.

Haha, I need a list to keep track of all the lists I'm on.

 

[Fappy]

Your Avatar has a nice fluid animation, but it's impact is greatly reduced by the rapid nature of the loop. If you make Yoruichi wink maybe only every 10-15 seconds it's quality would be increased significantly.

I stole it from a website somewhere a long time ago. I have no GIF-making skills

 

[Shock and Awe]

Well to be fair it is often necessary to break apart posts because many separate points are often put together in one paragraph and breaking it makes it easier to distinguish what counter is made to what argument.

OT: People retroactively editing their arguments. Its not just annoying, its just plain dishonest.