I posted something a few days ago in Face Book and looking at it some more, it seems a bit more profound than I intended. I wrote it in jest as a reply to how some people tend to reply with certain vigor and bias to an originator of a posted article. They usually expresses their commonly held opinions as fact, and then respond again to the additionally biased content of other reply postings expressing other opinions pro and con. Sometimes it seems there is a world of self appointed and even credentialed “experts” trying to correct and provoke each other in mock debate. I have seen this extend for many pages.
I wrote the quote below not as my personal philosophy, but as an example of what I see from all posters, and yes there is certainly a bit of it shining on me.
“ I long ago concluded that new open forum debate, such as in blogs and face book only serve to illustrate the complete ignorance of the participants on all sides of an issue, especially when they conflict with my views. :-p”
Please note the tongue out smiley at the end…
I support the freedom for people to express their opinions. Even if I consider them non factual. Many “topics” can be debated until they are broken. The exercise of academic team debating is an excellent example of how it can work.
The reality is; argumentative “debate” posting on a blog or social media seldom if ever “proves” anything. It’s function is much like a high school or college formal debate where the objective is not to defend truth. It is to “win.” In formal debating participants often argue in favor of concepts and topics they may personally not believe because the objective is (again) to “win” the debate (or perhaps as a politician, an election.) Sorry, couldn’t help myself. ~ Dan
The bulk of argumentative Internet postings I assume, are not posted by formal debaters. However, I have seen formal debate tactics used by some writers. My point is; posting a “winning” argument doesn’t mean that a concept presented in debate is suddenly a true fact. I have never seen anyone judged “the winner” on any Internet posts. The reader must wonder to what evidence is factual and if anyone has “won” anything.
The wonderful benefit is the exposure to debate presents an alternate view.
Non-moderated debates occasionally appear on blogs that deteriorate into filthy language and name calling “bully” tactics. They are most revealing about the person’s argumentative ability and for me, reflect poorly on the blog host. Those sites and postings I immediately recognize as “losers.” The vulgar intent has nothing to do with free speech and alternate view.
Here is an interesting link, easily found by searching “debating”. Of course the skills don’t apply on the Internet, do they?
http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html
Anyone care to post additional resources about good debate?