A good post about the kinds of arguments people use online, including tactics which are about the argument itself or some of the people involved in the argument, as opposed to being about the argument’s supposed topic.
You should know this to, one, avoid pointless “debates” where no actual issues get debated, two, to improve your own debate style to focus on the issues that need to be debated most, and, three, to see when others are merely acting like they’re debating without actually debating the core issues the debate is supposed to be about.
That was a good read, with some good philosophy of disagreements in there.
If anybody in an argument is operating on a low level, the entire argument is now on that low level. First, because people will feel compelled to refute the low-level point before continuing.
I’d add that it doesn’t always sit at a low level. It also results in one party leaving the conversation. The Keanu Reeves quote stands out – even if you say 1+1=5, you’re right. Have fun.
First, because if you do it right you’ll end up respecting the other person. Going through all the motions might not produce agreement, but it should produce the feeling that the other person came to their belief honestly, isn’t just stupid and evil, and can be reasoned with on other subjects.
I’ve lived in a very rural, red area, and a very socially-aware, blue area. In both, people are quick to write off others if they disagree. The methods of disagreement in this article may not help all cases of folks finding common ground in respect, it seems intrinsic to part of better-functioning world.
To your second point, this is actually a major problem of debates from a psychology stand point. Unless people are willing to change their beliefs, debates actually strengthen their belief in their previously held ideas. It is useless to debate someone that is not willing to change their mind.