Hari's Corner

Humour, comics, tech, law, software, reviews, essays, articles and HOWTOs intermingled with random philosophy now and then

Why I don't debate online these days

Filed under: Internet and Blogging by Hari
Posted on Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:29 IST (last updated: Wed, Jul 16, 2008 @ 20:24 IST)

Some time back, I took a conscious decision that I won't be taking part in serious online debates any more, at least not on a regular basis. Now there is a good reason for this and before you think that it is a case of battle weariness just after a heavy round of flame war, I want to correct that impression. I haven't been into any serious discussion for months now and I am actually beginning to enjoy being away from them and being able to ignore being drawn into them. But more on this later.

Firstly I would like to analyze this issue from a personal or first-person point of view. I think the issue I want to address goes deeper than merely being tired of flame wars, bad as they are. As a frequent observer of online forums and communities I have found a fundamental problem with debating online. There are a couple of factors here. Debating is a tough art and demands a considerable amount of time and energy. Constructing a logically sound argument to put forth your views, especially on emotive topics like politics or religion (and particularly religion) puts a tax on your brain and undeniably puts you into an "auto-censor" mode where you try to cut down your emotion in favour of logic and argument. This is a tough balancing act, particular with regard to issues which affect you personally and ideas which you hold close to your heart. There is a fundamental problem, I think, in communicating certain things by the written word across the electronic medium in a multi-way, public conversation. One being that you really cannot convey emotions that well - they tend to get misinterpreted most of the time by different people to whom you would rather not relate on a one-to-one basis. Another is that you are forced to sound "politically" correct by taking up positions which you would not care to defend when asked to do so in a real-world face-to-face scenario. I think writing down thoughts tend to clarify them too much sometimes and shows up your thoughts differently from what you might actually feel. Blurred or neutral points or view become too sharp and sometimes sting when unintended. I found more on one occasion being called upon to defend what I thought was a light-hearted quip and which was misunderstood by others as offensive in tone. And no, smilies don't help either. Rather they might in fact show you up as a hypocrite. Sometimes you're forced to apologize for something which you might have felt was a perfectly acceptable remark just to cool things down. Believe me, you may not feel the effect of a single apology at that time, but they make you more wary, more cautious and reluctant to participate over a period of time.

All these are personal issues. The other side of the coin is the debates actually become quite boring, repetive and mentally tiring when continued beyond a point. In real life, time and space constraints act as natural impedances to prolonged debates. Unfortunately, the online medium tends to overcome barriers rather too easily. A public internet forum or discussion group, being available to anybody at any given time, allows people to carry on debates to ridiculous lengths when you would rather see it die down after a certain point. Months-old debates continue to be revived by misguided or over-enthusiastic new debaters just to throw their "2 cents in." And the cycle continues. These debates become a nuisance just to observe, let alone participate actively in because every fifth reply is an echo of a previous one without any new thoughts added to it.

Talking of people, I want to say something which might offend some, but I will say it anyway. In fact it might apply equally to me as well in some instances and I accept that risk in saying it out. Most people who participate in debates refuse to participate in a meaningful manner. I'm not talking of mere sensible participation which anybody can achieve by posting a reasonably relevant reply to any topic on hand. The point I want to make is that people ought to do their homework and know their subject before they debate. This goes for anything: be it science, religion, politics, art, literature or even Linux verus Windows. Unfortunately people prefer to pour out their opinions instantly (in the "heat of the moment," you might say) without respecting facts. They prefer to push the "reply" button without caring to see what your point of view really is and what are the relevant points you've raised. You might have spent a good fifteen or twenty minutes constructing a perfectly sound, fact-filled argument only to be rejected instantly by a moron who doesn't read beyond two lines of what you've written. They don't flame actively, but by ignoring you, they actually insult your intelligence implicitly. This, I think, is one of the prime reasons why flame wars occur in the first place. More than the actual variance in points of view which can be addressed, refusal to acknowledge is the prime reason for flame wars. Now, these people might not be, in reality, be trolls but they can appear to be so by their thoughtlessness.

Let's face it. Some topics are best left to the experts: science and religion in particular. Academics armed with more facts and knowledge are in a much better position to debate these topic on rather more solid ground than laymen. People who rely only on their personal experience, opinions and feelings might not find too much common ground for any meaningful discussion with other lay people. On the other hand, academics who've done their research and who have a reasonably knowledge of not only own areas of speciality but also an understanding of why some things are the way they are, tend to go deeper, probe better and get answers which might actually help them and others. With due respect to all laymen including techie "geeks", I don't really think they are in a position to carry on religious or scientific debates. I have learnt to respect that and I humbly raise my hands to show that I don't have more than a cursory knowledge on some issues and I would rather stay out of such discussions than come forward and arrogantly proclaim my ignorance. This is not about freedom of speech, but rather about credibility which I have talked about in an earlier article. It's about respecting knowledge when you see it and acknowledging your own ignorance. It's also about owning up to factual mistakes. Unfortunately all I see on most online debates is finger-pointing, accusations and sometimes, elitist arrogance. It's not to say that you should apologize sincerely each time you make an error but merely to acknowledge that you have made it. Sadly, people shy away from such niceties which are in fact, the heart and soul of debating.

I want to conclude by saying that I'm not against debates. It's just that I personally find them more stressful, unproductive and meaningless as each day goes on. There are no winners or losers in an online debate, but only a lot of keyboard-weary fingers at the end of the day. Ultimately that bigot will remain a bigot, the racist will remain a racist, a religious zealot will remain a religious zealot, the liberal will remain liberal and an atheist will remain an atheist. Nothing really changes. In fact, over a period of time, I've learned to predict how certain people will react to certain topics. They sure didn't change their opinions or attitudes just because some faceless internet debater like me told him that he was right and they were wrong even by using sound logic and solid facts. And I'm sure I didn't change either. That ultimately is the clincher. I didn't gain anything by online debating, but by staying out of it I find myself more active and productive in other activities. It has also freed up my creativity to pursue other interests online and made me more relaxed about participating in a community in a non-controversial and pleasant manner. The ability to ignore serious debates on controversial topics hasn't come easy, but the freedom that it has given me is worth whatever price I've paid in the process of learning it the hard way.

14 comment(s)

  1. Right on. You can have one of your flame battles, and express your views, but what most people fail to realize about these are that almost everyone already has strong opinions about these subjects. Nothing you can say will change their minds. It's pointless to even bring it up.

    Comment by Brad (visitor) on Mon, Nov 14, 2005 @ 19:57 IST #
  2. Yes Brad. Unfortunately once you get into the habit of debating online, it's hard to get off. I have struggled a lot before I shed the habit. It's addictive. Now I can relax :)

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Mon, Nov 14, 2005 @ 20:03 IST #
  3. Well put. I avoid a lot of online debates these days for much the same reasons you listed.It amazes me frequently how many people will admit they know very little about a subject, and yet will argue for their beliefs about the subject as though they had devoted years of study to it.Take a look at Slashdot when global warming gets mentioned for fantastic examples - you'll get dozens of people saying that the climate is too complex to even hope to understand without years of study, and then ten seconds later will assert that anyone who does/doesn't believe we're causing global warming is an idiot or is financially biased.It's amazing, it really is...Of course, blogs and web pages can be a great way of getting your view across without all that tedious arguind & flaming - maybe that's why they're so popular? Everybody still wants to talk, but many of us have matured past the flamewar stage...

    Comment by Dominic (visitor) on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 @ 02:40 IST #
  4. I must say that I have to agree with all you have written. Unless you have a "hard core" of people who are deicated to the debate, it will wander off topic and descend into chaos.Personally, I prefer to have 'friendly debates' with people I know. That way I understand when they are joking or being sarcastic or when they go overboard that they don't mean it.I only read Slashdot occasionally, and try never to go beyond the first few comments - it's great for the breaking news stuff, but awful for the comments.

    Comment by Ray (visitor) on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 @ 03:13 IST #
  5. Dominic, yes, that's true. Web pages and blogs are popular for that reason. Your views don't get cluttered by debate since it's not a argue-counter-argue scenario.Ray, like you I rarely, if ever visit Slashdot. I really have to wonder what makes it so popular. Also your point about debating with people you know is a good one. Thanks for bringing it up. :)

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 @ 06:56 IST #
  6. Yes, Hari... what you say makes sense. But then as you say, everybody has his own 2 cents to say without bothering to college others' 2 pounds :)

    Comment by Sudipta Chatterjee (visitor) on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 @ 18:12 IST #
  7. Sudipta, welcome back after a long break! Hope everything is fine with you! :)

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 @ 18:14 IST #
  8. This is why the phrase was coined: Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, if you win you are still retarded. Nice read though, Ill be back every so often. And i think slashdot threads are really good reads sometimes.

    Comment by rjcrews (visitor) on Thu, Nov 17, 2005 @ 04:59 IST #
  9. Hari, that is why blogs are better since they can be moderated by the blogger to the point where it does not descend into chaos. Although I have also mentioned about "blog wars" that I am beginning to see in bits and pieces, in my latest post :-)

    Comment by thennavan (visitor) on Thu, Nov 17, 2005 @ 11:25 IST #
  10. rjcrews, that's an excellent phrase! Any idea who coined it? :lol:Thennavan, yes. You could say that, but I fear that with the growth of "community" blogs or blogs maintained by communities, we could see that chaos enter the blogosphere too! :)

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Thu, Nov 17, 2005 @ 16:47 IST #
  11. One small suggestion: The blog looked awesome to me as I came to know of it. Yes the negativities do threaten people when they pop up violently. But if you would carefully observe its hardly two or three repeated names figuring all through a debate. We should learn to shun the person, the moment we see an unreasonably argumentative person. It is invariably one person plus one supporter who try to sweep the good positives from the field because they wear an organised aggressiveness and conviction in their approach. At the same time constructive criticisms promote healthy growth. Every confrontation shows an alternative also. we can go on abandoning the unwanted rather than abandoning ourselves.BTW I came in through Mukundan's blog.Nice and thoughtful writeups. Dont give up. An elderly advice.

    Comment by padmasani (visitor) on Thu, Nov 17, 2005 @ 20:33 IST #
  12. Padmasini, thanks for dropping by with your thoughts. I'm not giving up debating, just giving up debating online in a multi-way forum environment. Did I mention that I love debating and like to participate in debates in the real world? ;)I guess my point was about one of structure. A structured debate is an excellent way to promote exchange of views. For example, no interrupting while a person talks, limited time to put forth your views and so on. All these works well in the real world. We learn a lot about communicating effectively and it prevents wastage of energy. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to "structure" a debate online without being accused of "censorship". Too much political correctness about "freedom" of speech leads to a lot of energy dissipation in my opinion. So I am very careful to enter into a debate these days.You're right about the stubborn debaters. Yes, they keep annoying me and unfortunately I just cannot ignore them because they dominate an otherwise good debate and all the good points you raise gets buried in the heap of responses to the bad ones. Ultimately nobody will respond to your good points.Now this is a good debate about debating :P

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Thu, Nov 17, 2005 @ 21:03 IST #
  13. Very true Hari. Your last para and the last line sums it up. But we can sense the negaive just as it comes. Who ever would derail the purpose of the debate needs to be shunned at once and ruthlessly. Now moderation is available and perhaps you can reply them privately. This has become a curse for popular or widely read blogs. Most of them are anonymous or they dont care for anything in the name of decency or decorum. Counter arguments are necessary for looking at the different view points. But in the name of freedom senseless arguments, if allowed, the whole debate starts working on the senseless arguments and you are very right that the good points get burried. I dont think you should worry about deleting such comments which would polute the basic sense and sentiment of the debate.There is one more negativity about allowing this is that the most sensible and avid readers give up saying, "its no use". :)

    Comment by padmasani (visitor) on Sun, Nov 20, 2005 @ 08:33 IST #
  14. padmasani, you've raised some very good points with regard to the blogging aspects of this. I guess I was talking more about public forums where the discussions naturally tend to be less structured and more chaotic.The point I guess is that when I was new to it, I used to dive into any conversation indiscriminately without pausing to recognize whether it was a healthy debate or a negative one. These days, I pick very few debates to enter into and I also don't respond beyond a few posts. When I run out of things I want to say and know that my side of the argument has been made fully, I know it's time to quit the debate. After that I stop following the debate because I know that I might be provoked to come back into it at some point.

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Sun, Nov 20, 2005 @ 10:52 IST #

Comments closed

The blog owner has closed further commenting on this entry.