Posted on 03/25/2005 12:17:47 PM PST by Keyes2000mt
love a good debate as much as anyone. Two of my favorite videotapes are the Keyes/Dershowitz debate on religion in society and the Marshall/Wilkins debate on the Civil War. Watching a debate with two people who are passionate in their views, discussing a great question is great entertainment to me.
Below this heady level of debate, we have the cable TV shows which put moderators in the driver's seat and press participants for pithy sound bytes. And then we have online debates.
If good, well-structured debates are boxing matches and the cable TV shows are ultimate fighting cage matches, then online debates are street fights where the winner is the last man standing.
I used to quite liberally join in the online fracases over a variety of issues: abortion, the resurrection of Christ, etc. I could often be found typing until 2-3:00 a.m. in the morning fighting the good fight and never getting anything done.
Over time, you begin to realize that online debates have some deficiencies, the greatest of which is that they're a waste of productive time. Still, if you want to "win" an online debate, here's some observations from a veteran:
Learn how to ridicule the beliefs of others: When you debate online, you can be quite contemptible in your choice of verbiage. Don't just respond to your opponents, ridicule them. If you merely respond, they can just fire back a response, but the ridicule will strengthen your argument and there's not really a good way to respond to being ridiculed.
Repeat yourself: Keep going over the same ground over and over again. The most talented online debaters say the exact same thing repeatedly in a slightly different way. In doing so, they force their opponents to become equally repetitive, which can help you in winning the debate.
Quote whole articles of more than a thousand words in their entirety. While in an offline debate, you couldn't stand up and read fifty pages of material, nothing stops you from doing so online. Thus, if you're not very good at forming logical arguments, all you have to do is quote others' good arguments and thus you can bolster your weakness and outmatch your opponent.
Remember that if your opponent quits debating you, you win. What will pay off most in repetitiveness, a snotty attitude, and writing posts that are so long that your opponent cannot respond to them unless he quits his jobs and dedicates his entire life to addressing your rants. If he says he's leaving because you're rude or repetitive, you've really won because it shows how much you dominated the debate.
Of course, winning an online debate comes with great rewards, but they aren't what you'd think. You won't have wide recognition for winning. If you're debating on a forum, you'll find that after the first hundred or so posts, the average reader skims the rest. Thus, the great online debates end with both the winner and loser unknown, even on the forum where the debate happened.
You won't really influence the direction of what people think on a given issue. Obviously, the aforementioned problem with length comes into play, because if people don't actually read the debate, they're not going to be influenced by it. Also, the people who are willing to debate you on issues generally feel the strongest about them and are the least likely to change their mind. Online debates tends to entrench people in their opinions, not soften them.
Online debates don't prepare you for real life debates, either. Try my advice offline and any responsible moderator will cut you off. Strangely enough, being tiresome, rude, and annoying doesn't win debate in real life forums.
The prize is the satisfaction that you won the debate. You beat that guy. You showed him who was right!
Of course, winning in the traditional sense of debating is nearly impossible. Making great points and presenting ideas clearly don't count for much if you can't tire your opponent out in the world of online debates.
Don't get me wrong. Online discussion boards are great because people can air their unique views and express their opinions with a little bit of back and forth. However, when I'm tempted to enter a long drawn-out debate where odds are strong comparisons to Hitler will be made and/or Findlaw.com will be quoted extensively, I remember the words of the computer Joshua from the movie War Games regarding global nuclear war:
Interesting game, professor. The only way to win is not to play.
Exactly. Unfortunately, while essentially everybody agrees the Nazi are evil, most people have very a distorted and incomplete picture of how they got there.
And talking to self....
bttt
Not quite yet, but he will!
Having done the ridicule, the repetition, and the absurd quotation, all he needs to do now is wait till we stop posting, pop in with a quick note, and the parody is done.
Of course, he'll need to keep pinging the thread for the rest of his life. :-)
It's been ages since I'd seen the word "snotty" in print.
***Instead you are trying to sway the swing voter and to plant a seed or two in more reasonable opponents. ***
Precisely! When I'm up against a "professional" debater on FR, I tell him that I'm not interested in what he thinks, but I respond just once and for one reason only--that some newbie who really wants to learn the truth might read what I have to say. FR is NOT about winning a "debate," but about spreading the truth.
Thus my contribution to our community.
***It's been ages since I'd seen the word "snotty" in print.***
But it's a much better word than Al Gore's "snippy."
Learn how to ridicule the beliefs of others:
This guy must be the advisor to the evoFReeps here on FR.
classic!
I'm honored. Thanks.
The answer to all of this nonsense is a scholarship to the Monte Python Argument Clinic.
CODE OF THE FLAMER
I am a flamer.
I attempt to be worthy of this title by striving to observe the code of the flamer.
FOR MYSELF:
I already know what the hell I am talking about so, I do not need to research my topic any further.
I will respect my arguments. The other fellow isn't making sense anyhow.
I will chose coercion and violence over persuasion.
I will learn from each victory. Defeat? What's that?
I will be a poor loser and a worse winner.
I will apply criticism only to others. After all I'm right, of course.
I will, in a flame, use the best flames I possibly can. No holding back.
FOR OTHERS:
I will respect their rights to hold their stupid, paranoid fantasies. After all, it's a free country.
I will respect me, myself, and I. Oh wait, this part was about others.
I will be as strident about my arguments and evidence as I can, and will do my best to ignore those of others.
I will mercilessly flame those with less experience. After all, I was kicked around when a newbie and I don't want them to have it easier than I did.
No, it isn't.
ROTFLMAO. Damn that was good.
I think you're a Nazi...
....aww crap......
I just lost.
I'll do better next time.
hehehe
Hiaku? Hiaku? Damn I'm good. And if I'm not good...I'll do iambic pentameter the next time around.
If we all agree,
There's no reason to debate.
Where's the fun in that?
Haiku!
It's not wise to compare members of FR with the mentally handicapped...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.