Whenever I somehow enter an argument with people in real life, typically the discussion ends in a few minutes when one party concedes that they made a mistake. The points in question supporting each side's views are presented in a civil manner and generally are not full of fallacies. Even if the other party is convinced that they are right, they usually drop the subject when they realize that their arguments are being shot down.

The internet is meant to just be a medium of communication, with real people behind the aliases and nicknames. However, I've observed that arguments play out far more differently on the internet than in person. If I went only by the content presented in these arguments, I would have concluded that the average internet user is about as intelligent as a chimpanzee, since they seem to believe that:

• Presenting an opposing viewpoint against an established truth somehow validates the contradictory viewpoint as being equally sound
  
• Stating completely unrelated facts somehow supports the argument
  
• Insulting the other person causes your argument to be taken more seriously
  
• It is completely valid to ignore everything the other people say while preaching their own views
  
• Their words meant something different from the commonly accepted definition, but only if others point it out
  
• If A then B, then not A implies not B
  
• Everything involving destruction of life equates to murder only if other people do it
  
• If two arguments contradict each other, one of them must be true
  
• Speaking condescendingly while spewing jargon will somehow fool everyone, even experts in the field are present
  
• The argument disagreeing with theirs is invalid because they didn't listen to it
  
• My viewpoint is emotionally appealing, therefore it is automatically superior
  
• The validity of my argument is proportional to its length
  
• An exception somehow proves the rule
  
• Something unlikely occurred, therefore it must have been intentional
  
• A single nonextensible instance confirming your argument somehow validates it
  
• Their opponents are racist/prejudiced/bigoted for arguing against them
  
• Renaming chaos theory into "the slippery slope" somehow makes it applicable to the real world
  
• Hypocrisy somehow invalidates the opponent's argument
  
• Their definition of the opposing argument overrides what the opponents actually believe in
  
• If someone believes in both A and B, and B is wrong, it invalidates A as well
  
• Supporters of the opposing argument are suck-ups
  
• Flaws in the opposition's personal history invalidates their views
  
• Deceptive exaggeration is permissible as long as they call it a hyperbole
  
• All incorrect statements can be retroactively labeled as sarcasm
  
• The opponent is arguing for attention while their own reason for argument is always noble
  
• A single flaw in the opposition's argument invalidates the entire viewpoint, while their own argument must be completely shot down to be invalidated
  
• They can pull fictitious assertions out of their behind and get away with it because no one checks them
  
• Nothing is true unless they witness the event themselves
  
• Taking one-liner potshots at the opponent after losing the argument is akin to guerilla warfare and thus acceptable
  
• If they do not admit defeat, then they have won
  

Why do people behave like this and never think their arguments through? Does anonymity make people much bigger dickheads than they would be in real life, or does it just provide people egocentric boosts in confidence? I am quite sick of reading through pages of arguments where neither side listens to the other at all, since I am sure that none of those discussions would persist as long as they have on these forums had the contributors talked face-to-face. inb4 people start arguing in this thread and commit the exact same errors I pointed out

Because I'm the smartest person on the internet.

Ego.

Quote from Rantent

Because I'm the smartest person on the internet.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Ego.

I see what you did there.

Seriously though, it's because nobody ever wants to admit they're wrong and the internet lets them hide that they are with "trolling", whatever that is.

not so sure real life arguments are of higher quality, though certainly shorter

If you meet someone in real life there is a good chance that the "environment" you grew up in is the same or very similar. If you are friends with them that usually means that you understand and respect where they are coming from. Of course that can boil over into internet relationships too, but any similarities in the environment are pretty much gone. Moreover you'll meet people of varying ages and experience online. When you are in high school, your friends are all within the same age range of you because you are put in this environment of 9-12. I have realized that when I sign onto here I might be talking to someone ten years younger than me. That's also why you see what seems to be the same-old-same-old threads. It is someone new or young who feels they have a great revelation that everyone else came to years ago.

The other thing is that online people disect every. single. word. It drives my bonkers. For example I'm sure many people would like to say to me "oh but my friend lives in the lower class and my family is rich, that isn't the same environment" which is not only anecdotal, but also missing the point entirely, because income is not the only deciding factor in environment. And then someone might bring up the exact definition of environment, and we find that we all have different interpretations, and no one can agree on what that is. I don't agree with everything my boyfriend says or does or believes, and we grew up down the street from each other and went through pretty much the same education and hoops. But we can understand each other and can see where we are coming from. Online? Not so much. Few people actually sit down and think "huh, I wonder why they say it that way?"

You can't punch people on the internets. Simples.

Mostly what cardinal said, except I'm not joking about it. People will be assholes without the force of society behind them to spur them to be nice.

Not being able to punch people illustrates the divide between reality that we live day-to-day and the anonymity and anarchy that the internet allows us to experience. In reality there are constraints on arguments due to the facts of life, on the internet you don't have to deal with these things, so you don't.

By extension, you should stop being such an asshole with your first post, Aristocrat. Perhaps the idea that the person you're arguing with considers their viewpoint to have some merit is worth looking into, or that you could be mistaken in your arguments, and it isn't necessarily your "opponent" who is acknowledging emotion over logic or another of your bullet points, they simply think they have a point and want to make it. People like acknowledgement. Also, people are so afraid of being wrong that they'll never admit most of the time that all their argument is based in fear -- no matter what the content of their viewpoint is.


Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to call you an asshole. I kinda did but it was only the result of my thinking process and I didn't actually mean it. You're not an asshole (as far as I know )

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 16 2011, 2:16 am by Vrael.

Pretty much what I was about to say.

People don't care being regarded as douches on the Internet.

Because FUCK YOU.

Also, tl;dr.

One could argue the point that it might relate to the type of person that gets on forums and gets on the internet. Not saying that all people who get on the internet are X, but it filters out a lot of people.

As TiKels said, different sorts of people on the internet.
Someone who engages in an online debate is obviously, in some way, interested in it, and in many cases has a relatively large audience to... enlighten. In person? Most people, in my experience, simply don't care enough about whether or not their thoughts make the least bit of sense when put under scrutiny that they'll just drop a debate like a rock that turned out to be hosting maggots on its underside.
Also the "can't punch someone on the internet" thing as stated above.
Also, related to FireKame's statement, it's easier to actually engage in a significant debate online. You're not restricted to a few minutes, maybe a few hours, and whatever each others' short term memories provide. If someone misreads something, it's easy to point it out, which can become troublesome if you're ten minutes deep into a sub-debate and both forgotten the actual wording and arguments from then. You can't go to Wikipedia (or google, or whatever) and search things on the fly. Lacking citations? Screw you.

I wasn't joking either.

I was making two points:
1. On the internet, you can act however you like, with no fear of physical or societal repercussions for your thoughts or actions. You have essentially 100% free speech (within reason).
2. Text cannot convey true emotions, or body language, or sarcasm, or sincerity (as your reply to my 'joking comment' so ironically points out).

[/thread]

I'll drive your bonkers.

I see 3 parts to it so far.

1 You do not exist, therefore there will be no negative consequences for what you say.
"It's not wrong if you don't get caught"

2 The people being communicated with are not being viewed as living breathing people.
"People on the internet have no lives so I must be better than them"

3 Misunderstandings from talking through text.

My problems arise from the second, (Sometimes I have to remind myself that you are real people.) and the third, because I explain myself badly.

Arguments on the internet get resolved all the time.

I beg to differ.

http://www.staredit.net/forums/25/

OH U

Perhaps we should start a thread so we can argue about this too?

No that'd never go anywhere, it'd just turn into a flame thread.