On internet debate.

[trmof]

Not that this has never been thought of before, but I have some thoughts on why internet debates usually get so much more aggressive and include more name-calling than real-life, face-to-face ones.

Many have already argued that the simple distance the internet provides makes people more likely to say something they would feel uncomfortable saying to a person's face.

This is likely a key component. However, I would propose another, more important factor: In real life, if you miss a chance to make a clever comeback, you simply missed it. If you try to revisit the topic at a later date to make your quip, people will rightfully view you as socially out of step. On the internet, however, you can return to the debate at any time once you have formulated a new comeback, and while it may not move the conversation forward (it may, but in my experience it usually doesn't) no one will think you strange for making a snide remark.

This is both good and bad: It allows people to say what they are really thinking without regard to other people's feelings; conversely oftentimes people get so wrapped up in formulating a good comeback that that they don't realize they are failing to introduce new ideas, or perspectives to the conversation, or are failing to answer legitimate questions which have been asked.

I'll admit that I often fall prey to this myself, and though I try to impose rules about when and how to respond to ad hominem attacks and rude behavior, those rules rarely make it through the firefight of an entire topic without being broken in some manner.

It's frustrating, but understandably human, and it's important to keep in mind that different people have different definitions of what constitutes trolling vs wit. I've observed that these distinctions will all too often have an element of rationalization to them, where the opposing side is vastly more likely to be characterized as trolls, whereas your side is vastly more likely to be innocent jokers trying to be witty.

All of these factors, I think, are informative points to keep in mind while conversing with others, as it will potentially help you become more aware of your own unexamined rationalizations, wherever they may lie.

Everyone's thoughts?

[Cato]

Everyone's thoughts?

Fuck off.

[trmof]

Everyone's thoughts?

Fuck off.

Hmm, I see your point. But no.

[Aoi Magi]

If you can get over the "witty comeback" aspect and concentrate on the actual debate, a debate on the web is much more fruitful, because you simply get more time to explain your point and understand the other views. Time is essential to have a calm discussion, do research, and debate with actual information.

[trmof]

If you can get over the "witty comeback" aspect and concentrate on the actual debate, a debate on the web is much more fruitful, because you simply get more time to explain your point and understand the other views. Time is essential to have a calm discussion, do research, and debate with actual information.

I agree, the fact that one CAN come back when they've thought of a comeback also means they can come back after giving the topic more thought and having an epiphany. The benefits definitely outweigh any perceived costs. It's still important to remember, though, who your audience is. If you are trying to convince the passersby, you can be much more loose with your use of poetic language. If, however, your true goal is to convince the person who disagrees with you, you have to keep your thoughts much more focused, as any snide remarks, even in complete jest, are likely to bring the conversation to a halt.

[Aoi Magi]

Jest is a necessary part of a argument especially when the argument doesn't consist of any characterisitics of a meaningful and factual debate. A snide remark is also useful in a non-face-to-face debate, as it helps to express the emotion involved alongside the actual point as both are important information.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Well you can rest easy knowing that when it comes to defining what constitutes a troll on here, mine and my fellow colleagues on the staff get the ultimate and final word.

So really it becomes academic from that standpoint

If you can get over the "witty comeback" aspect and concentrate on the actual debate, a debate on the web is much more fruitful, because you simply get more time to explain your point and understand the other views. Time is essential to have a calm discussion, do research, and debate with actual information.

I agree, the fact that one CAN come back when they've thought of a comeback also means they can come back after giving the topic more thought and having an epiphany. The benefits definitely outweigh any perceived costs. It's still important to remember, though, who your audience is. If you are trying to convince the passersby, you can be much more loose with your use of poetic language. If, however, your true goal is to convince the person who disagrees with you, you have to keep your thoughts much more focused, as any snide remarks, even in complete jest, are likely to bring the conversation to a halt.

You should also be aware that debate is very, very rarely about conving the other person you're right and they're wrong, but more about convincing onlookers that your points have more validity than your opponents.

[Violet]

Crack the community whip... they'll love you for it.

[Angrboda]

I find my most heated responses come from not taking the time to think before posting, rather than any taking advantage of the time I have. Composing offline might help reduce such things, but who is going to do that with every post?

[Jenny A]

Not that this has never been thought of before, but I have some thoughts on why internet debates usually get so much more aggressive and include more name-calling than real-life, face-to-face ones.

Many have already argued that the simple distance the internet provides makes people more likely to say something they would feel uncomfortable saying to a person's face.

This is likely a key component. However, I would propose another, more important factor: In real life, if you miss a chance to make a clever comeback, you simply missed it. If you try to revisit the topic at a later date to make your quip, people will rightfully view you as socially out of step. On the internet, however, you can return to the debate at any time once you have formulated a new comeback, and while it may not move the conversation forward (it may, but in my experience it usually doesn't) no one will think you strange for making a snide remark.

---

This is both good and bad: It allows people to say what they are really thinking without regard to other people's feelings; conversely oftentimes people get so wrapped up in formulating a good comeback that that they don't realize they are failing to introduce new ideas, or perspectives to the conversation, or are failing to answer legitimate questions which have been asked.

I'll admit that I often fall prey to this myself, and though I try to impose rules about when and how to respond to ad hominem attacks and rude behavior, those rules rarely make it through the firefight of an entire topic without being broken in some manner.

It's frustrating, but understandably human, and it's important to keep in mind that different people have different definitions of what constitutes trolling vs wit. I've observed that these distinctions will all too often have an element of rationalization to them, where the opposing side is vastly more likely to be characterized as trolls, whereas your side is vastly more likely to be innocent jokers trying to be witty.

All of these factors, I think, are informative points to keep in mind while conversing with others, as it will potentially help you become more aware of your own unexamined rationalizations, wherever they may lie.

---

Everyone's thoughts?

I would say that the common wisdom is right. Most of the reason internet debates are more heated is that we are more comfortable saying what we think when we can't see the other person's reaction and this effect is heightened if we are anonymous.

The other effect of the internet, is that it is easier than ever before to limit your contact to like-minded people and sites that confirm your on biases.

I think one of the reasons Christians and other theists find this forum so difficult is that they aren't used to opposition concerning their beliefs. Unless directly confronted I don't usually try to talk to people about the absurdity of belief in god. I let remarks like "god blessed me with this new job" slide in favor of generally getting along. This space, however is set aside for atheists and I feel no such compunction here.

The tale has two sides of course. Atheists on Christian sites suffer similarly. The only difference is that we suffer more of it in the physical world.