Research on Internet Arguments. Yes, really.

[Freak Ona Leash]

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 .

[Xisor]

No, but I feel distinctly distant from others on this point. I'm told, on the odd chance I meet a 'person from the Internet' in meatspace, that I talk (and argue) in reality almost precisely like I do on the Internet. So much so that mid-argument/-discussion at some parties whilst at Uni, I was often interrupted with "Wait a minute, are you Frank from TheSinner.net?".

In that regard, I'm generally very opposed to trotting out logical fallacies and misdirection in arguments. In forums, I think it's really important to convey some sentiment and tone to a stance you're taking, mainly because it's so very easy to totally miss it. A pleasant, well-mannered (even if heated) argument is vastly enjoyable. These ninnies ruining things by caring about things such as victory at any cast...bah, humbug!

[Dylius]

Personally I don't think that most people would usually argue in the same way on, say, an internet forum and in real life, as people tend to be more polite in reality. This is just pure speculation but maybe it's because:

1) We have to live with these people and
2) It's much easier to see if you've offended someone in real life, so are more likely to stop, and even apologise (which rarely happens on the internet).

[Lars Porsenna]

I absolutely do NOT argue on the net like I do in the real world. A big factor is I tend to not engage in such things in the real world because I am not very good at public speaking, but also because any argument I engage in must be supported by facts, and I'll actually research an argument and post backed up with facts, or links. My strategy is that I am always prepared to make citations if asked for, and it is an alien concept for me if someone does not feel factual arguing is necessary.

I should also add that I view internet arguments much like a debate or a public forum (makes sense, right?). So if I am arguing with a specific person, my true objective is not necessarily to persuade that person to my viewpoint, but the silent audience that might be following the discussion.

Damon.

[AFnord]

Factual arguments works roughly the same when using them in an on or off-line argument, but apart from that, the two are worlds apart. The main issue is the obvious one: Lack of consequences and personal interaction, which means that people will quite often just ignore or talk past the other person's argument(s). If you anger someone, so what, that person can't do anything to you.
I've usually found that the "best" way of actually conducting an argument on the net, if I'm interested in winning it, is to first state my arguments, and then when the person in question totally ignores or cherrypicks points from my argument in order to prove his/her point, I'll point out the fact the person was arguing past me, not with me, that usually makes people back off/actually make a good counter-argument.
In real life people still like to cherrypick points to nitpick on, but it is a lot harder to do in a coherent way, so it is usually better to face the persons arguments head on instead. Real life arguments are structured like usually point-counter point-counter counter point anyway, and not wall of points-wall of cherrypicked counter points.

[Feldmann]

Good thread! I will discuss with people online but they only have one or two chances to prove they are interested in real discussion. Many will simply pick and choose what they respond to etc etc and whether it is on the internet or in real life, I cease discussion with these folk.

In essence, you only have a certain amount of time in life, one must use it wisely.

[Shush]

Generally I find myself responding differently on a forum to how I may respond in real life. You don't get context, so much and you can't read a post like an essay as they're not written that way.

I will tend to ignore things that bother me on the Internet. I kind of assume, sometimes, that either the intent was to offend or provoke or that I've misunderstood the context or meaning that was intended.

Edit:* That doesn't mean I won't report stuff.*

Stuff usually just isn't worth arguing about on the Internet anyway!

Good luck with your research,

Shush

[Sai-Lauren]

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?

No, simply because in person to person conversations body language, tone of voice etc carry a lot of meaning - without them, it becomes a lot harder to get your point across successfully, and short of messing around with fonts through an internationally agreed standard, there's no way of conveying it.

Also, people can kind of hide behind on-line monikers, which means that they're more likely to argue even when the point's been proven and other people are telling them to get onto the next point - so long as you don't transgress the rules of the forum you're using, then, as Afnord said, there's a lack of consequences.

Plus there's a time aspect - I can type this now, but everyone else looking at this thread is going to read it well into the future - hours, maybe even days later. Even through a chat program there's always a certain time lag that you just don't get with a person to person conversation. That means that you're pretty much throwing what you're saying out there and waiting for someone to reply.

[Meriwether]

It's similar but not identical. I'm certainly just as blunt in real life as I am on the internet, and because I use voice recognition software my phraseology is similar as well. Of course, that gets obfuscated by the internet poker face, and the lack of affect can be a problem sometimes... I'm often poking fun in a very lighthearted way, and yet sometimes people take it as a grave personal assault on their dignity, honor, family, and legitimacy as a human being. This simply doesn't happen in real life, but the reason is, I suspect, simpler than it seems.

The primary difference between the two media is that in real life you have an absolutely huge amount of discretion in determining who is involved in the conversation, and if someone's an argumentative troll or an authoritatively assertive ignoramus you simply don't invite them to join the discussion. Online you do not have this kind of control except in very carefully created spaces (like my family's private forum -- if ya ain't family or a family friend, you ain't there), and so you end up with trolls, know-it-all teenagers and twentysomethings who aren't yet old enough to realize that they don't know absolutely everything about everything and that an admission of ignorance on a topic isn't a personal failing to be avoided at all costs, and knee-jerk lemmings who've never had an original thought and assume that everyone who disagrees with them is either misinformed or dishonest -- all mixed in with the people you're actually trying to have a reasonable conversation with.

Add to that the secondary and tertiary differences -- anonymity, lack of affect, impersonality, etc. -- and you get, well, 4chan if the space isn't very well moderated.

[de Selby]

I tend to make my point and then go. Sometimes I end up making the point several different ways because I think someone genuinely isn't understanding what I'm saying, but I try and avoid getting into quote wars and I don't feel the need to try and rebut everything someone says. If we're trying to convince the gallery they're unlikely to read a wall of text anyway. I also try to let go of my anger before I act, as Master Yoda would wish.

It took me a while to realise that the reason apparently trivial matters escalate into major engagements is that people aren't actually defending the proposition at hand (which may be trivial) they're defending their own ability to reason correctly from implicit criticism (or alternatively, they're enjoying criticising that of another). That's why the intellectual machinery deployed to support some minor disagreement over Warhammer background can get so disproportionate; if you're not reasoning correctly about this one tiny issue, how can any of your ideas about anything be trusted?

One other thing; it's not just lack of affect that makes irony difficult to detect on the internet, it's the fact that no matter how apparently insane the proposition, someone out there is completely sincere about it...

[Meriwether]

There is that!