daniil's Journal: On internet debates and the Godwin Point

Everyone knows by now that Internet debates are entirely futile. They usually result in exactly nothing and only serve to waste the time of those participating in them. There is no positive result. There can't be one, as the "rules" or the structure of an Internet debate simply don't allow it: all the debates pretty much boil down to two people yelling "NO, you're wrong!" at each other. No new information is ever added; the topics have already been debated to death, and the arguments used are such that everyone pretty much knows them by heart. Nothing new.

The only thing an Internet debate can ever lead to is what I call the Godwin Point -- the point where the people participating in the discussion realize that it has drawn out way too long. This usually happens when they run out of arguments.

Some people think Internet debates are about winning. That you can lose a debate by using a Nazi comparison. Of course they're wrong. The truth is, there are no winners. No losers, either. It doesn't really matter whether you use a Nazi comparison or not; it doesn't matter whether you are the one that posts the last comment to the thread or not, you'll still end up thinking you won the argument. But you didn't, and neither did you learn anything new. You only wasted some time.

I have to disagree

[Iamthefallen]

Everyone knows by now that Internet debates are entirely futile.

I believe that they're immensly useful, and only a Nazi would say that they're not.

Re:I have to disagree

[Red Warrior]

Me too.

Seriously, actually. Just like real-life debates, it all depends on the motivations the participants bring to the (figurative) table. I have changed my mind on occassion due to discussions on /. and USENET (back when I spent time on it), not only on technical issues, but also on philosophical ones. Not often, as I feel no need to change opinions just because someone disagrees with me, only because they make a better case.

Now, there are reasons why it is harder to have civil debates on the net(s), mos

Re:I have to disagree

[Iamthefallen]

Not to mention, in RL conversations you can't get away with quietly looking up a word [reference.com] to avoid looking ig'nant.

On the net, no one will ever know!

In seriousness, because of the availability of references and literature on the net, it has forced me to do more research for a statement to ensure I can back it up. In RL conversation, you let things slide more often. Even if you call someone on a falsehood in real life, odds are they'll just disagree with you because "everyone knows that...".

Or even better, the c

Re:I have to disagree

[Red Warrior]

Also, IRL conversations, you don't need to know how to spell the words. I knew the word, and how to use it in a sentence. I had to go to the same site to see if I was spelling it even remotely close. (No, I wasn't ;->)

Re:I have to disagree

[daniil]

While I cannot claim to have changed my mind on anything because of something I read on /. (I generally don't have an opinion in the matters discussed here, be they technical or political), I have learned about quite a lot of things here. In some cases, my own ideas have become more clear to me. If this applies to other people as well, then perhaps Internet debates aren't entirely useless. Ultimately, however, the answer (whether they're useless or not) depends on your point of view. I look at the net from

A rational model for debating

[Morel]

This is something I've given some thought to, and this [kuro5hin.org] seems like an excellent starting point. I've tried it with varying degrees of success. The author also frequents [slashdot.org] Slashdot, and he seems to contribute positively to the signal to noise ratio.

Cheers,
Morel

Re:A rational model for debating

[Anarcho-Goth]

It helps, but some people just like yelling.

"Resistance is useless!"

me too

[weierstrass]

i agree.