Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Both sides can come up with solid arguments but things like politics or religion? People are solidly set in their viewpoints and will never "convert" to an opposing viewpoint because some dude on the internet make a good argument for their ideology.

Convincing somebody that buses make more sense to impliment then trains in the USA for mass transportation is likely the most hard-core issue you could reasonably expect to have to convert somebody to your point of view.

Maybe if this was friendly debate. It is unlikely to even get someone to admit they are wrong on that subject in INTERNET WARFARE.

START THE WAR!

GET YOUR GUNS, LOAD THEM WITH BULLETS, MANY MANY BULLETS!

AIM TO THE ENEMY! SHOUT... FIRE!

[HAMMERMILL]

Productive discussions on the internet never last long. All that can be said, is said logically and quickly and opinions on either side are either changed or reinforced.

Arguments about politics or religion last forever and never accomplish anything. You will not convince an Atheist to pray to The Lord or a Christian to abandon his religion anymore then you will convert Osama bin Laden to Catholicism. You just simply cannot waterboard people with online discussions and that is the major downfall of internet conversations.

Arguing left or right wing political ideology is the same way. Unless you can physically hammer peices of bamboo under a Republican's fingernails, you cannot convince him that Socialist ideology is the way to go. This cannot be accomplished by typing words in a box on a screen, even if you were on the highschool debate team.

[Cheeetar]

It really depends how deep their beliefs are, and how prepared they are to actually listen to the other person's argument.

[Il Palazzo]

Adding a poll to a given discussion thread would suffice. E.g. X is right, Y is right. This way you can measure who is more convincing in their argumentation.
While it's very hard to convince the person you're arguing with, it's not necessary the point of the discussion. Public debates are, after all, about two(or more) opposing sides trying to gain support of the audience. Look at the political discussions - you won't make that democrat guy abandon his evil ways and become republican, but you can present your case is such a way as to convince voters to support your party instead of the other one.

[HAMMERMILL]

Nope, the unpopular minority will just feel alienated and will go even crazier with his ideology, even if he stops arguing.

You cannot even convince a guy that his favorite beer is crappy even it really is crappy and you happen to be an expert on the subject matter. That Bud Light swilling freak will lash out and become even more vicious and loyal with his favorite beer.

Thats just beer. Imagine trying to convince a Muslim that Allah is dead and pork blood is a great condiment to add to oatmeal.

[Il Palazzo]

You don't convince fanatics(of whatever type), they already found their salvation. You convince the undecided part of the audience. That's where you can measure your "success".

[HAMMERMILL]

There usually isn't an "unconvinced audience" in an internet discussion. Nobody posts in subjects they don't care about.

A sXe Mormon guy isn't going to care what sort of beer some heathens think is better then the other and a guy that never votes and sees all politics as different colors of the same damn thing is not going to be persuaded either. He will just see it like it is, two groups of fanatics foaming at the mouth at each other.

[Il Palazzo]

There usually isn't an "unconvinced audience" in an internet discussion. Nobody posts in subjects they don't care about.

I beg to disagree. There's a distinction between "not caring about the subject" and "not having formed an opinion about the subject". The former are not your audience, the later are there to convince.

[Servant Corps]

I can think of at least three times on this forum I've been in an argument with someone and agreed I was wrong when proven so.  Now gimmeh mah points![/quot]

Did you concede to the other side entirely, or did you only concede away a minor point while the main argument continue? Conceding away a minor point does not count as "conversion", you'll need to agree totally with the other side. I suppose a concession is important to have though, because if someone admits that they are wrong, that does score as an important tactical victory.

Being able to accept that your wrong about something is worth at least some points.

I'm not that sure. If you accept that you are wrong, you are giving in to somebody else's worldview. It might make sense logically, but it might not make sense in an online argument where you have to persuade people that you're right.

Adding a poll to a given discussion thread would suffice. E.g. X is right, Y is right. This way you can measure who is more convincing in their argumentation.

Well, polls could measure how many Active Lurkers they are, however, people who vote in polls may not read the thread in question and only put in their own flaws. Plus, polls could be biased for one side or another, and could easily lead to problems.

UPDATED SCORE CARD
Debate Score Card
1) "Real" Active Debater: +10 Points
2) "Real" Active Lurker: +5 Points
3) Concession During the Argument: +20 Points
4) Conversion During the Argument: +100 Points

[Ciber_Ninja]

Arguments about politics or religion last forever Agree and never accomplish anything yep . You will not convince an Atheist to pray to The Lord or a Christian to abandon his religion If you can come up for with solid evidence that god exists you have a convert from me but dont expect me to go to church. You just simply cannot waterboard people somebody should invent a punch in the face utility for the internet online discussions are the major downfall of internet conversations.

[a1s]

Being able to accept that your wrong about something is worth at least some points.

I'm not that sure. If you accept that you are wrong, you are giving in to somebody else's worldview. It might make sense logically, but it might not make sense in an online argument where you have to persuade people that you're right.

Actually, since debate is a team sport, a full conversion doesn't just give arbitrary points away, it earns points for your new team. (and by extension to you.  )

Speaking of points, the proof of eating, as they say is in the pudding. Would you care to tally up a score so far?

[Squeegy]

DOHOHOH, A DEBATE IN A THREAD ABOUT DEBATE.

[Servant Corps]

Being able to accept that your wrong about something is worth at least some points.

I'm not that sure. If you accept that you are wrong, you are giving in to somebody else's worldview. It might make sense logically, but it might not make sense in an online argument where you have to persuade people that you're right.

Actually, since debate is a team sport, a full conversion doesn't just give arbitrary points away, it earns points for your new team. (and by extension to you.  )

Speaking of points, the proof of eating, as they say is in the pudding. Would you care to tally up a score so far?

Hm. Let me look at some other debate topic, and see if I can tally stuff.

[a1s]

Hm. Let me look at some other debate topic, and see if I can tally stuff.

I'm assuming no suitable topic was found? We could always just make our own test flame war (with controlled burn, as it were )

[Servant Corps]

Nah, no staged arguments yet. I'll just find some topic and look at it soon. I just don't have time at the moment, since I got other things to worry about.