Why Many Debate and Argue Online

[Spacescifi]

 

 

Knowledge is power.

Not everyone wishes to discuss, nor does everyone wish to debate. 

Whether you choose to engage or disengage... at least understand what you are engaging in in the first place.

Also this:

Spoiler

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Spacescifi

[SOXBLOX]

The differences given are actually, upon closer analysis, trivial. E.g. Looking for logical flaws is by its nature, reflecting on the opponent's views. Also "set, clear" vs. "fluid". Can anyone consistently define "fluid" in this sense? Learning is winning. And when one loses, one can be rational, and learn from their mistakes by identifying the flaws their opponent exploited. So everyone can win.

Whoever created this graphic seems to be trying to tilt the playing field. By casting "debate" in a negative light, they can argue that anyone debating them is being "bigoted" or "competitive" or whatever. Of course, anyone using this line of logic would also meet the criteria for "debating", but this would be conveniently ignored.

[Shpaget]

Because the other side is wrong.

[Spacescifi]

6 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

The differences given are actually, upon closer analysis, trivial. E.g. Looking for logical flaws is by its nature, reflecting on the opponent's views. Also "set, clear" vs. "fluid". Can anyone consistently define "fluid" in this sense? Learning is winning. And when one loses, one can be rational, and learn from their mistakes by identifying the flaws their opponent exploited. So everyone can win.

Whoever created this graphic seems to be trying to tilt the playing field. By casting "debate" in a negative light, they can argue that anyone debating them is being "bigoted" or "competitive" or whatever. Of course, anyone using this line of logic would also meet the criteria for "debating", but this would be conveniently ignored.

 

A non-zero sum game?

Hmm...  perhaps. Although I have often seen that the intent behind online debates is rarely if ever for everyone to 'win'.

The world online and offline would not be the way it is if it were.

What is non zero sum game?

In game theory, situation where one decision maker's gain (or loss) does not necessarily result in the other decision makers' loss (or gain). In other words, where the winnings and losses of all players do not add up to zero and everyone can gain: a win-win game.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Spacescifi

[SOXBLOX]

Not always. Sometimes people don't listen to reason. Then they gain nothing. 

[Entropian]

28 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Not always. Sometimes people don't listen to reason. Then they gain nothing. 

Perhaps they think you're not listening to reason.  They may think that you gain nothing.  Reason is dependent on the person.

[SPACE-MAN]

This is highly superfluous

[Spacescifi]

43 minutes ago, Entropian said:

Perhaps they think you're not listening to reason.  They may think that you gain nothing.  Reason is dependent on the person.

 

Do you think I made this entire post because I wanted to complain that people online debate and argue with ME?

This is superfluous, but also not me.

Spoiler

Neither is this... which is even more ridiculous:

Spoiler

 

I did not post to complain regarding my experiences using KSP forums. If anything, KSP posters have acted more maturely than any other forum I have seen.

My post was merely made after observing the incessant debating verging on insults going on in a thread in KSP forums made NOT by me. Moderators had to step in not once but twice. Which is good, because otherwise the entire mood of this forum would start looking like the dystopia that is... other forums.

I am not taking sides, as I barely even read the other post I am referring to, I just know that if a KSP mod said it was a heated discussion, it WAS. So they stepped in.

My original post merely reflects my thoughts on the debates so common online. I tried to do so in a way that was respectful.

My personal observation is that discussions easily shift toward debates online without some realizing it.

But that does not have to be  Thus this:

Spoiler

 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-sub-word-cussion-mean-in-words-like-discussion-concussion-etc

[Moach]

[DDE]

Came here for @Moach's post, was not disappointed.

[Guest]

Yeah I agree with the OP's image, online debates are clearly with the intention of "winning" (leaving last post, as if to leave opposing party wordless... we've all seen this before). No matter how open minded each party claims to be, they've already solidified their stance on the subject and are highly unlikely to change unless given extraordinary arguments.

Ultimately, they're a pointless waste of energy when taken seriously. They can be sometimes entertaining to read, however, up until the point where it "parallelizes" and you've got multiple arguments going on at the same time... then it's just a pain due to the way it differs from normal human communication. Usually happens after one of the parties replies with an essay-sized response and the rebuttal splits it into multiple segments.

Proper discussions on the other hand, seem to happen when both parties start out already with a convergence of ideas at first, even if implicitly. When both are working up to something. I feel like those can be productive, as it really is more about learning than "leaving the last reply".

Edited September 13, 2020 by Guest

[TheSaint]

On 8/9/2020 at 4:12 AM, Shpaget said:

Because the other side is wrong.

No it isn't.

[kerbiloid]

Stop arguing, sirs, you don't see the picture in whole!

[Lisias]

On 8/9/2020 at 1:51 AM, SOXBLOX said:

Whoever created this graphic seems to be trying to tilt the playing field. By casting "debate" in a negative light, they can argue that anyone debating them is being "bigoted" or "competitive" or whatever. Of course, anyone using this line of logic would also meet the criteria for "debating", but this would be conveniently ignored.

Not necessarily. The Wright Brothers were known to debate each other over ideas, where one would continuosly try to prove the other wrong - ergo, a winner and a looser. But they also switched places, and then the defensor of an idea started to play the offensor role.

It was how they managed to find the best ideas for their projects and rule out the bad ones before wasting too much time on them.

The debate and the discussion models explained above are only tools. No ill intent is embedded in the concept.

Ill intenioned people may prefer a debate because they want the "thrill" of "winning" the debate, what they would not achieve on a discussion. But this should not be reflected on the tool - only on the ill intentioned people perverting the tool to accomplish their ill goals.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Lisias
My God, it's full of tyops!

[DDE]

On 9/13/2020 at 7:27 PM, Aperture Science said:

Yeah I agree with the OP's image, online debates are clearly with the intention of "winning" (leaving last post, as if to leave opposing party wordless... we've all seen this before). No matter how open minded each party claims to be, they've already solidified their stance on the subject and are highly unlikely to change unless given extraordinary arguments.

Ultimately, they're a pointless waste of energy when taken seriously. They can be sometimes entertaining to read, however, up until the point where it "parallelizes" and you've got multiple arguments going on at the same time... then it's just a pain due to the way it differs from normal human communication. Usually happens after one of the parties replies with an essay-sized response and the rebuttal splits it into multiple segments.

Not entirely. Arguing online is a spectator sport that's usually done exclusively to boost your own side.

Usually at the expense of the other side, which is the problem.

[kerbiloid]

"How do you do? You do it wrong!"