Tips For Online Debating From A Frustrated Amateur

 

Tips For Debating Online From A Frustrated Amateur
by Rob Cottignies

After that disaster of a first presidential debate, there is much “discussion” about who won, lost, or otherwise. This article is not about politics but how to handle such conversations.

…

Have you ever debated with strangers online? There’s that one comment you simply *must* respond to, then the stranger responds and aggravates you more, so you respond to that one, then get angrier, etc.

I have done too much of this and, sadly, have little to show for it. Many minds are already made-up so trying to change one is useless. People even argue after being out-witted because they think their beliefs are facts. Name-calling is frequent, poor grammar is rampant, and getting annoyed is all but guaranteed.

I still pursue this pointless endeavor but have shifted focus to how people present their comments, instead of just clashing opinions.

To turn my frustration into something (somewhat) productive, here are some stories along with ways to (possibly) make yourself feel better while inevitably being angry regardless while debating online.

…

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed me a new face of the “pro-life” crowd. Some comments I read under articles about RBG praised her death, while some even hoped for a rushed version of the same fate for other prominent liberal-leaning people.

For some reason, I engaged with one of these commenters who was excited the Supreme Court will possibly soon have a conservative-leaning majority.

I asked, seriously, how that would benefit all Americans. He immediately insulted me, attacked me for being Liberal (which I’ve never claimed), and obnoxiously promoted the political side he supports.

I then asked if he thought reasonable discussion would help society or if “winning” was the only important thing.

This is where it got fun:

He chose the latter and described winning as keeping the goalposts moving. I pointed out that goalposts are not known for moving, which he curiously insisted was true, then went silent after I asked which weird sports with moving goalposts he watches.

I didn’t make fun of him nor was I trying to “win” the discussion. However, I’ve always taken silence as the other person submitting to reason, though fully aware that’s unlikely.

Another guy who joined the conversation had a rebuttal typical for these times. Instead of answering how a conservative Supreme Court would benefit everyone in the country, he asked which Liberals openly work toward that goal. (Immediate deflection is a huge sign of weakness.) I agreed with the guy and said there are sadly not enough. He liked the comment then disappeared, which I also took as submission to reason.

They nor I came out correct but maybe something was learned.

…

My point is to get people to think about what they say. Call them out. Don’t uselessly overwhelm them with facts; just comment on what they said and how it was presented.

Casual misspellings happen but even an excellent argument becomes worthless if it’s littered with mistakes in basic grammar. The writer seems like a fool, even if “spelling doesn’t matter” on the internet. (That may be true for cat memes but not when trying to make a serious point.)

…

I am not an expert on debating but here are some tips on doing it respectfully:

Know your enemy.
Most of us have seen comments which are absolutely disgusting no matter the side of any topic. Many of these statements were made by trolls- which are much less helpful than creatures who live under bridges and eat children- purposely to get angry reactions. Your comment will fall on deaf ears. (Or blind eyes, since it’s online.)

The same idea goes for people who ‘flex internet muscles’. It’s easier (and safer) to type a horrible thing than say it to a person’s face. People are much more likely to be confrontational online since there are little if any repercussions. In real life, you might get screamed at or punched in the face.

Be confident but not stupid. After writing something, consider if you would speak it in front of strangers.

Save your typing for somebody who presents their differing opinion with dignity and might be open to new ideas. A decent conversation may result, which is less fun to be in and read, but could actually achieve something like a new thought in someone’s brain.

Do not insult the person.
Though extremely tempting, this is a pointless tactic which accomplishes nothing but frustration.

The urge to return an insult will be strong (trust me) but don’t sink to that level if you believe in the point you’re making. I’ve had my profile pictures and bartending experience attacked, been called things based solely on assumptions, and in one curious case got repeatedly slammed for living in my mom’s basement, which is untrue.

Doling out insults is also a sign of resignation. If your point is good, you’ll…

Stay on topic.
Bringing up something which is related or happened years ago has its place in debate but never do it right away. Immediately going off-topic shows you have an agenda but cannot express it adequately. This is called deflection and people do it all the time. It’s a sure way of knowing the person is not capable of civil debate.

Question what’s in front of you.
Using someone’s words against them is effective, simple, and feels good. The idea is ‘Why did you say it like that?’ instead of ‘Why did you say that?’

This doesn’t always work, however. I saw a comment from some guy that he would be sending in his wife’s voting ballot. I asked why she couldn’t send her own and his reply was he never said he’d send hers. The issue in question was on a thread he initiated and was plainly visible. There is no point in arguing with that ‘post-truth’ mentality.

Admit defeat.
If you’ve been outwitted or proven wrong, admit it. It’s pathetic when a person has so much pride in something false. Concede the argument or move to a new topic. Ignoring it admits defeat but saying as much does wonders for your respectability.

The same idea goes for acknowledging when you don’t know about something and asking questions instead of making things up and fighting just for the sake of it.

Agree with them.
If you communicate long enough, you’ll probably agree with something the person says. I’ve found telling them so eases tension and the conversation becomes less confrontational.

Also, agreeing with an angry person causes confusion and frustration, so it will be fun if nothing else.

Look at what is presented.
Did the person make an assertion without evidence? Ask for some, though in my experience the request will go unanswered.

Is the comment full of trendy buzzwords and catch-phrases? Dismiss it.

Regardless how good an argument may be, I won’t even consider it if these words or phrases are present: Covidiot, snowflake (unless the topic is weather), tRump, democraps, demoncrats, sheep (unless talking about actual sheep), something about drinking the Kool-Aid, libtard, Trumpster fire (that one's kind of funny), Drumpf, triggered, Socialist (unless you know how Socialism works), Karen (unless that is the person’s name), or an emoji instead of punctuation.

There are probably more but I’m exhausted just thinking about that lot.

Make your own list of things to avoid and react to those who comment without them.

Don’t bother.
Despite all this advice, my best tip to not argue with strangers online. The chance that you’ll change a mind is very slim so save yourself from the frustration. Just answer some questions and simply watch people lose their minds. Observing without interacting is oddly relaxing.

For more inspiration to abstain, read this article.

…

To summarize an experience, I once commented about Trump saying COVID-19 was a hoax. I was called out, did research, and found he did not directly say that. While talking about COVID-19, he said something about Democrats attacking him for his response and *that* was the hoax. Doesn’t really make sense but you’ve probably heard him speak.

Point is- I admitted being incorrect to the person who called me out, which he appreciated. I then asked if he would admit Trump’s way of speaking can easily cause confusion, which he did. After that, we forgot about the quote and made an example of the conversation, hoping others would see it and learn that people with opposing viewpoints can be respectful.

Did it work? I’ll never know. But various comments in the thread got likes so hopefully at least one person took something positive away from it.

…

If you want to improve at debating in general, come up with arguments FOR the other side. (Quietly and to yourself, of course.) Do some research into why they think that way and pretend you’re defending the person in court. Then, go back to the prosecutor’s side and annihilate the things you came up with. Understanding the other person can help prove your point more succinctly.

Again, as Zach de la Rocha wrote, know your enemy.