I’ve heard it said in many different ways that debating on the internet is bound to be futile. “You’ll never win a debate on Facebook,” some say. “It only puts you in a bad mood,” argue others. Some of my friends and family often say of debating in general that it only serves to divide people, and therefore we should keep quiet about our opinions. “Can’t we just agree to disagree and talk about something else?”
And it often seems that they feel this way for good reason. One of the first things I learned about Youtube (probably the second thing I learned, right after figuring out that it was about videos) was that the comments so often reflect pure, unfiltered rage.
And it often seems that they feel this way for good reason. One of the first things I learned about Youtube (probably the second thing I learned, right after figuring out that it was about videos) was that the comments so often reflect pure, unfiltered rage.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think either side is serving itself well here. The poor spelling and grammar certainly double the problems created by the messages, taking away any supposition you might have that the authors can at least think and write articulately.
Though the above could hardly be considered a debate - just shouting match. When online interaction actually starts leaning toward a debating style, it often remains disgraceful to the art of debate.
Take, for instance, arguments using painfully inaccurate or generalized statements, like this:
What a detrimentally exclusive, over-simplified, and uninformed definition of religion - there are such better ways to argue his point. And “we see moral behavior in all species on this planet”? Give me an example of nematodes acting morally. Those guys are parasitic bitches who are totally out for themselves.
One nematode eats another
Whether or not you agree with these users’ main points, they’re doing a disservice to their positions by using bad wording and faulty information.
Then there are Facebook debates, which more often than not (in my experience) exhibit a certain degree of a debate-like format, but nonetheless are butchered by fallacies, bad sources, inaccurate facts, and personal insults.
- american-buddha.com
So what do we do about it?
This all saddens me, because social media can lend itself to intelligent, enlightening discussion on an infinite array of important topics, but we have such a large amount of people who 1) do not know how to debate intelligently, or B) witness bad debating and avoid getting involved. And so our debating grounds become a cesspool of hurtful language, misinformation, and unproductive interactions.
This is precisely why I try to nose my way into debates, even with the worst culprits of these crimes.
When someone argues for something I think is outrageous on Facebook or elsewhere, and I have some time and energy on my hands, I challenge it. I take their anger and ignore it, boiling their words down to the real premises and conclusions they’re making, and debate with them. I keep my composure, I make no insults or assumptions about them personally, and I stick straight to objective facts and valid points. I also avoid value judgments as much as possible when debating practical matters.
One beautiful thing about doing this is that you get to be the calm one. While you express your love for rationality and legitimate information, you also get to watch the other person snap and spit at you for a while, which is pretty damn funny.
- whatwouldamenschdo.com
But what’s even cooler is that, when you remain calm, respectable, and factual, people will often come down to your level. They’ll try to reason with you your way, and at that point you might be able to get some helpful discussion going. Trust me, it works more than you might expect. Most people don’t want to rip you apart - they just want people to hear them out and don’t know how to do it successfully.
But I think what’s most important to remember is that you don’t necessarily win a debate just by winning - that is, getting the other person to agree with you is not the only way to make a debate valuable.
I think a debate could be considered a success when several things happen as a result:
- You’ve exposed someone to a new viewpoint. Even if they took a huge shit on it, they’ve at least heard it in articulate terms. Maybe they’ll reconsider it later.
- You’ve inspired someone to think through their position actively by getting them to write it out, coherent or not.
- You’ve had your own opinions challenged by the arguments the other party is presenting.
- You have provided an example of quality debating style.
- You attracted an audience who was interested in the discourse.
- You led the other person to concede points they may not have conceded otherwise.
- You made a new friend out of it.
Here are a few tactics used by effective debaters (granted this is written for those involved in formal debates, but the points are still useful. I would also suggest spell-checking your points while debating online - very helpful in boosting your credibility.)
People may be turned off from debating online because it makes them feel crappy, but I think if we approach debating as a valuable process in itself, as something that cannot be counterproductive if we try our best to do it with dignity, then we will welcome debates as something exciting rather than frustrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment