"Arguing on the internet= You're still retarded

[BrainBlow]

We have all heard it.

However, I call BS on this claim, and I'd like to point out my issues with it.

Before I begin; granted, some things ARE pointless arguing about.
-Pepsi vs Cola
-Xbox vs Playstation vs Wii
-Mac vs pc
-This soccer team vs that soccer team
etc
These are things that come down to personal preference and isn't some issue that would be resolved even in a face-to-face discussion.

But then we come down to other issues.
Everything of politics, science, etc etc etc.

It assumes that "Not admitting defeat= Never convinced, everything is the same".
If you only consider an admitted defeat a "victory" then yes. You may still have convinced the person, they just won't say it. Technically, you have won the discussion. The point of the discussion isn't(shouldn't) be to get something to gloat about, but to change their stance on an issue or to explore their stance.
I will say that anyone who have been on the internet over a long period of time and claims to never have been convinced about something they had a different stance on, is probably a liar.
Even if the person won't admit to him/herself that he/she was wrong, the individual will have these thought lingering and they will slowly change their opinion and pretend they figured out their new stance by themselves.
We have all to some degree done this.
Pride is of high value, even on the internet.

My second problem with this is that it pretty much assumes that no one is looking at your discussion.
Believe it or not, but watching two people duke it out(as long as it is written coherently and not in all-caps or something) actually has the ability to change opinions and influence to onlookers.
A slightly honest individual will be able to see "who is winning" or who makes the most sense.

In the end I would just like the whole "internet arguing= Special olympics" stereotype to die!
It doesn't make sense when you look at the whole issue and it only provides a cheap last-comment for someone obviously losing a discussion.
"Like, dewd, u r 2 srss abot argung. this is teh intarnet, dumfuk!!1! u r not guing t convince any1. im don argung whith u"

 

[Squawk]

Since we have examples on this very forum of people changing there minds in the face of evidence the claim is easily shown to be erroneous.

 

[Jotto999]

I hate that claim. The only thing that might make arguing on the internet a total waste of time is the person you are arguing with, and perhaps yourself. Sure, I've seen lots of internet arguments that were pointless. I've also seen magnificent demonstrations of one person's knowledge, reasoning, and refined opinion verbally slay a weaker one, and that's glorious. Even if they didn't admit it, anyone watching could see and decide for themselves, maybe learn in the process. To say that it's always inherently pointless is awfully wrong.

 

[RichardMNixon]

There's also something to be said for further educating people who agree with you but aren't quite as knowledgeable in their own right. I have supported evolution for a long time back since I liked science and wasn't particularly religious, but I had no idea just how compelling the evidence was. I thought creationists were a bit silly but had some genuine objections to evolution and could still be considered rational people. I thought evolution was "just a theory." Then I watched AronRa's videos. :facepalm: Viva la evolucion!

 

[televator]

Yup. So I think it's not worth just giving in. The possibility to either change an opinion or learn something yourself is there. It just depends on the person you're talking to and the mood they're in. Besides what is one to do? Just allow the sites you frequent to become hate filled cesspools?

 

[Squawk]

There's also something to be said for further educating people who agree with you but aren't quite as knowledgeable in their own right. I have supported evolution for a long time back since I liked science and wasn't particularly religious, but I had no idea just how compelling the evidence was. I thought creationists were a bit silly but had some genuine objections to evolution and could still be considered rational people. I thought evolution was "just a theory." Then I watched AronRa's videos. :facepalm: Viva la evolucion!

+1

Besides, I tend to do research when in an internet debate/discussion, so I edumacate myself in the process. I hope others learn something from it too, but meh, tis fun.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

My second problem with this is that it pretty much assumes that no one is looking at your discussion.
Believe it or not, but watching two people duke it out(as long as it is written coherently and not in all-caps or something) actually has the ability to change opinions and influence to onlookers.
A slightly honest individual will be able to see "who is winning" or who makes the most sense.

I agree with this point 100%. In fact, this is the only reason why I "argue" over the Ethernet. Changing the persons mind that I am arguing with would be nice, but I know most of them are either too willfully ignorant to ever be persuaded by my points or are simply trolls trying to get a rise out of me (creationists are often one of these types).

The thought of an onlooker reading what I have posted and understanding it, is the goal of my posts in any online discussion.

 

[quantumfireball2099]

Well, I'm living proof that the original claim is bull.

 

[lrkun]

I agree with the claim. People believe what they want to believe.

 

[BrainBlow]

I agree with the claim. People believe what they want to believe.

Yes, absolutely.
Yet, no, absolutely not.
Not everyone is an aspiring Behe.

 

[Jotto999]

I agree with the claim. People believe what they want to believe.

Perhaps biased and irrational people believe whatever they want. Guess they aren't the ones that benefit from all this then, are they? How do they alone represent whether or not internet arguments are worthwhile?

What about all the other people who will benefit? What about the numerous times internet debates have made a difference? I know lots of people just on this site alone have benefited from the discussions and debates, certainly myself included. You would dismiss the brilliant arguments posed, and the learning and insight that followed as a result, as "retarded"?

Then how carelessly and ironically you throw that word around. My opinion of you, Irkun, sinks ever lower.

 

[lrkun]

I agree with the claim. People believe what they want to believe.

Perhaps biased and irrational people believe whatever they want. Guess they aren't the ones that benefit from all this then, are they? How do they alone represent whether or not internet arguments are worthwhile?

What about all the other people who will benefit? What about the numerous times internet debates have made a difference? I know lots of people just on this site alone have benefited from the discussions and debates, certainly myself included. You would dismiss the brilliant arguments posed, and the learning and insight that followed as a result, as "retarded"?

Then how carelessly and ironically you throw that word around. My opinion of you, Irkun, sinks ever lower.

This is why I find arguing in the internet retarded.

 

[Jotto999]

This is why I find arguing in the internet retarded.

That is in no way a counterargument against what I said. It doesn't even make sense. Can't you answer my criticism?

 

[lrkun]

I agree with the claim. People believe what they want to believe.

Perhaps biased and irrational people believe whatever they want. Guess they aren't the ones that benefit from all this then, are they? How do they alone represent whether or not internet arguments are worthwhile?

What about all the other people who will benefit? What about the numerous times internet debates have made a difference? I know lots of people just on this site alone have benefited from the discussions and debates, certainly myself included. You would dismiss the brilliant arguments posed, and the learning and insight that followed as a result, as "retarded"?

Then how carelessly and ironically you throw that word around. My opinion of you, Irkun, sinks ever lower.

This is why I find arguing in the internet retarded.

That is in no way a counterargument against what I said. It doesn't even make sense. Can't you answer my criticism?

I would have answered if only you criticized my opinion, but you added the highlighted part. So no, I won't bother answering to your criticism after this post.

 

[Jotto999]

I would have answered if only you criticized my opinion, but you added the highlighted part. So no, I won't bother answering to your criticism after this post.

I doubt it. I've seen you get insulted far worse than just that yet continue. I think you're a liar and a little chicken who can't handle conflict. What do you think of that? Oh, that's right, you'll need to voice your disagreement to tell me. Shucks! The intellectual coward escapes to be pathetic another day.

Listen, dude. I don't hate you. I just don't see why you'd bother coming on a site like this but say the anti-debate and anti-intellectual opinions you have. Why? if you actually thought it was 100% futile, a waste of time, "retarded", then why the hell are you even here?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

This is why I find arguing in the internet retarded.

But I see you here in the forums arguing fairly often. Retarded?

Personally, I've learned a ton from reading these internet discussions to the point where I've been up some critical thinking skills and basic knowledge about a whole slew of knowledge. And this is from mostly just lurking and not really participating in the discussions, so yes, there are others who are reading these arguments.

 

[lrkun]

This is why I find arguing in the internet retarded.

But I see you here in the forums arguing fairly often. Retarded?

Personally, I've learned a ton from reading these internet discussions to the point where I've been up some critical thinking skills and basic knowledge about a whole slew of knowledge. And this is from mostly just lurking and not really participating in the discussions, so yes, there are others who are reading these arguments.

Arguing is different from fighting, don't you agree? The former requires reason, the latter involves name calling and all that logical fallacies. My comment refers to that guys remark where he added the name calling and insults rather than focus on the arguments. That is why I find it(his reply without merit, although the reasoning was sound, he didn't have to add the latter portion) retarded.

I use the word retarded because it's the word the thread starter used in the title of this thread.

 

[Aught3]

I think you're a liar and a little chicken...

Jotto, please be slightly more careful how you address the other members of this forum.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Arguing is different from fighting, don't you agree? The former requires reason, the latter involves name calling and all that logical fallacies. My comment refers to that guys remark where he added the name calling and insults rather than focus on the arguments. That is why I find it(his reply without merit, although the reasoning was sound, he didn't have to add the latter portion) retarded.

But even before he insulted you, you stated this:

I agree with the claim. People believe what they want to believe.

And the OP makes it clear that he's talking about discussions and not "arguing" that involve insults and name calling. Or did you not even read the OP?

 

[lrkun]

But even before he insulted you, you stated this:

I agree with the claim. People believe what they want to believe.

And the OP makes it clear that he's talking about discussions and not "arguing" that involve insults and name calling. Or did you not even read the OP?

I read the OP. That which you quoted is my opinion on the matter. My latter post, if you read it, was about that person's reply to that which you quoted. He did make good arguments, but he had to add an insult as a closing line. So I chose not to address the issue. As you can see, if you read the previous post, he again did some name calling.

Arguing, if you're familiar with logic, is akin to a reasonable discourse yes? But, when you add logical fallacies into the mix, to my eyes, it becomes a turn off. Why? Because it takes the focus out of the arguments and into the person saying the argument.

I hope this clears things for you.

---

In case you're not familiar with the reference: People believe what they want to believe refers to person who having met all the facts and grounds which reflects reality still chose to close their eyes to it. Ex. You say it's gravity. The other person says no, it is god. You can't change my mind because I believe his angels are pulling the thing to the ground. <-- this situation.