Have Personal Computers Changed Debates For The Better?

[southern california guy]

I've noticed that it is VERY different debating with someone online, and doing it in person.

In the past I've been frustrated when I was debating something with someone and I gave them an example of an experience I had -- or something I heard about -- to strengthen my point. They dismissed it by saying "That's a lie! That never happened! Prove it to me!" And it wasn't like there was any way that I was ever going to get them to check it out for themselves.

Debating on the computer is much different. More people are involved (More peer pressure?) and if they say "That never happened! Those are all lies!", you can provide links to newspaper articles, books, magazine -- sometimes even get other people to back you up. And even if they still refuse to look at the links invariably somebody else, who reads the thread, will look at the link and say "You're right!". And the people who disagree will usually either back down and agree -- or disappear altogether.

Even though the internet isn't a perfect library of information it still provides quick easy access to a great deal of information. I think that it sort of broadens our view of the world. Or at very least helps us to write and type better.

Edited June 7, 2009 by southern california guy

[princessgianna]

It seems to me that when there is a debate online and one party provides an "online proof" the opposing party can usually come up with another "online proof" that counter dicts the opposing information.

If not they can fall back on the "It's on the internet-and therefore we need to be skeptical" to get out of a tough spot.

I find it rather humorous!

Edited June 7, 2009 by princessgianna

[tinytherese]

When writing online though, sometimes what people say can be misinterpreted. I've written some things online that some people have construed as being angry or mean when in reality I was being mellow or just passionate in a non-threatening way. If I had been right in front of them, they would have been able to tell from my facial expressions and tone of voice that I was not being angry or mean.

I've had bad experiences debating with atheists or even just pointing them to a referrence of an author to read and wow have they been known to be mean bigots who may even resort as low as obscenities. Thankfully, on phatmass we have mods to step in on those situations, but they don't have them on youtube comments.

[Winchester]

No. Mass communication has not furthered human thought. Coupled with egalitarianism, it has set back intellectual progress. Not only do idiots have the capability of swift and widespread communication of their stupid ideas, they are also told by the lead idiots that their ideas have as much merit as every other idea. It's horrible.

[scardella]

We should all just get along.
Or put on our tinfoil hats and cower in fear.

Take your pick.

I find that face-to-face tends to respect the person more. Whereas online it seems a little more "no holds barred". And I've gotten myself into a few. On here.

[puellapaschalis]

I find talking online much less intimidating than irl, especially if opinions differ more.

[Arpy]

I have never seen anyone appreciably change his or her mind as a result of an Internet debate. It's just a big echo chamber.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Arpy' post='1886553' date='Jun 8 2009, 04:10 PM']I have never seen anyone appreciably change his or her mind as a result of an Internet debate. It's just a big echo chamber.[/quote]

I take it that you did not see the debate about veils a few months ago?

[Arpy]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1886558' date='Jun 8 2009, 01:17 PM']I take it that you did not see the debate about veils a few months ago?[/quote]
Nope. I assume it was between fairly similar-minded people, which would make any mind-changing rather less appreciable than, say, an obstreperous liberal philodox converting to Orthodox Judaism.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1886313' date='Jun 8 2009, 09:52 AM']I've had bad experiences debating with atheists or even just pointing them to a referrence of an author to read and wow have they been known to be mean bigots who may even resort as low as obscenities. Thankfully, on phatmass we have mods to step in on those situations, but they don't have them on youtube comments.[/quote]
You debate on Youtube? You deserve all the abuse you take.

[url="http://xkcd.com/202/"]xkcd- Youtube. Warning, mature language.[/url]

[Arpy]

#459 is the best ever!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Arpy' post='1886707' date='Jun 8 2009, 06:56 PM']#459 is the best ever![/quote]I first saw that on this very site, and it got me hooked. First one I ever saw, and then I read the entire archive.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1886330' date='Jun 8 2009, 11:18 AM']No. Mass communication has not furthered human thought. Coupled with egalitarianism, it has set back intellectual progress. Not only do idiots have the capability of swift and widespread communication of their stupid ideas, they are also told by the lead idiots that their ideas have as much merit as every other idea. It's horrible.[/quote]

Prove it, buddy! I want links to back that up.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1886313' date='Jun 8 2009, 08:52 AM']When writing online though, sometimes what people say can be misinterpreted. I've written some things online that some people have construed as being angry or mean when in reality I was being mellow or just passionate in a non-threatening way. If I had been right in front of them, they would have been able to tell from my facial expressions and tone of voice that I was not being angry or mean.

I've had bad experiences debating with atheists or even just pointing them to a referrence of an author to read and wow have they been known to be mean bigots who may even resort as low as obscenities. Thankfully, on phatmass we have mods to step in on those situations, but they don't have them on youtube comments.[/quote]

tinytherese,

I would think that debating the existence of god would be a [b]VERY [/b]difficult debate no matter what. But I confess I've done it myself.. They were able to get me a little when they brought up Egyptian mythology -- and the story of Osiris. But even if some Egyptian mythology did find its way into the bible, that doesn't disprove that Jesus existed -- which they try to argue. But it does bring up in interesting question. Do we believe in part because of the more unbelievable miracles, as convoluted as that is?

But anyway back to the idea of debating on the internet. I think that at least [i]some[/i] of the debates are more intelligent than debating in person -- which is often only an exchange of opinions and heresay without any real research or facts to back it up...

Edited June 13, 2009 by southern california guy

[Maria]

One thing I have found in my experience is that the more time people spend on line, the less they tend to be willing to read long, developed articles and arguments, or even anything that requires much thought. Heck, I've noticed the change in myself. So I'd say that, although there are certainly benefits, the very fact that the internet culture is an instant culture is detrimental for in depth arguments.