Hello all, I’m writing this as an aid to research done for my university on rhetoric, particularly when seen in the context of argument and persuasion on the internet. Considering the focus of this forum, we are no strangers to arguments of all kinds, ranging from humorous and tongue-in-cheek debates to eye-gougingly-awful flame wars that seemingly serve no purpose other than to prove John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Dickwad Theory. And all that on whether Mat Ward is in fact the Antichrist, or simply one of the 12 Higher Lords of Hell. Jokes aside, and keeping that wide range of experience we all certainly possess in mind, I am going to pose you all a question: considering the internet’s obvious differences from to the real-world—which, to my eternal chagrin, certain people actually do seriously refer to as “meatspace”—do you consider the same argumentative strategies you consider persuasive in real-life persuasive on the internet? More specifically, do you expect different modes of argument and therefore have different criteria for successful persuasion on the internet as opposed to argument in real-life? No knowledge of rhetorical principles needed, though if you wish to spout off something about ethos, rhetorical virtue or logical fallacies, by all means feel free .