Simple Question... Monday. OOPS. Someone even reminded me on Saturday, and I still forgot.

Anyways, fairly straighforward question. Not sure if it's necessarily Serious-worthy, because it's not exactly philosophical, but it deals with the nature of the debate in itself.

Is it worth arguing with random people on the Internet? As opposed to arguing with people you do know on the Internet, or even people you know offline. Because with those people, you might be able to actually get a word in edgewise, they'll actually listen to what you have to say (hopefully), and there's no anonymous barrier--since you know the person you're arguing with, you know their language, you know their values, and you know what's gonna convince them before you waste time trying to get to the bottom of it.

But on the Internet, with random people, you don't really have any of that. The person you're arguing with might be a troll, and might not even believe half the shit he's saying, and is simply trying to get a rise out of you for the lulz. They might be an ardent supporter of their cause, and nothing will convince them of anything, especially on the Internet, because they can simply claim that whatever sources or statistics you pull up are either fake, biased, or somehow "not enough" to support your counterargument. Often, people will make threads feigning open-mindedness--saying shit like, "I'm just looking for an honest debate here," when in reality, they're just using it as a soapbox platform for their own ideals and they actually have no intention of ever changing their minds.

Because of Poe's law, debates on the Internet often boil down to sheer semantics--whereas offline, unless you're speaking to someone who doesn't understand sarcasm, there's not gonna be much confusion with word choice.

So is it all worth it? Or is it all just a waste of time? Should we nuke the Serious board?
Nah, I don't think we'll go that far. lol

It can be both entertaining and informative.

it has the potential to be constructive, but 99.999% of the time its a waste of time

It provides some entertainment and information from time to time but it's pointless for the most part. I wonder why I let myself get caught up in it so much sometimes. I suppose its the old biological imperative of being right or getting the last word in.

Is it a biological imperative, or is it just an ego thing? or both

I enjoy reading them but I never really partake because it's usually people(myself included) google'ing information on the whim.
 

Well, I'm never one to argue much in person in real life. I've always liked to keep my views down low since expressing them usually just lands you in shit you otherwise could have avoided. Obviously it's a different case over the internet.

I think, at one point, I might have said that it was worth arguing or having a debate with people over the internet. But now, I don't think so. It's too much of a time waster and just exposes you to more bullshit one way or another, exactly like real life. I'll discuss things for a little bit, but I won't invest much beyond a conversation that's not going to land anywhere meaningful.

It obviously depends on the intelligence or reasonability of your opponent to have any chance of getting through. So, generally no.

Discussing things on the internet is how like 80% of my views were determined, so I'd say it definitely has value.

Most of the time it's useless.

Either you're right (Great! You've learned nothing.), you're wrong (you learn something but usually at the cost of your ego, not exactly something that can just slip by with most people), or it's one of those controversial arguments where there is no "true" right answer which results in an endless and fruitless argument.

It's only entertaining if you're not taking part.

It's literally this Monty Python sketch:

Quote from: SuperIrish on October 26, 2015, 05:13:35 PM

Either you're right (Great! You've learned nothing.), you're wrong (you learn something but usually at the cost of your ego, not exactly something that can just slip by with most people), or it's one of those controversial arguments where there is no "true" right answer which results in an endless and fruitless argument.

If you're arguing to "win", you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

I never mentioned winning anywhere in that. You can still be right and wrong in an argument without arguing for the sole purpose of "winning".

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 26, 2015, 05:16:25 PM

Quote from: SuperIrish on October 26, 2015, 05:13:35 PM

Either you're right (Great! You've learned nothing.), you're wrong (you learn something but usually at the cost of your ego, not exactly something that can just slip by with most people), or it's one of those controversial arguments where there is no "true" right answer which results in an endless and fruitless argument.

If you're arguing to "win", you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

I never mentioned winning anywhere in that. You can still be right and wrong in an argument without arguing for the sole purpose of "winning".

I was kind of agreeing, but I don't think there's anything fruitless about a discussion with no "right" answer. Philosophy builds rhetoric and helps define and shape how you view life. Also, ego shouldn't factor into this in the first place; the goal should always be to teach and learn. I realize that it often does factor in despite that, but it's not essential to argument.

Quote from: SuperIrish on October 26, 2015, 05:18:27 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 26, 2015, 05:16:25 PM

Quote from: SuperIrish on October 26, 2015, 05:13:35 PM

Either you're right (Great! You've learned nothing.), you're wrong (you learn something but usually at the cost of your ego, not exactly something that can just slip by with most people), or it's one of those controversial arguments where there is no "true" right answer which results in an endless and fruitless argument.

If you're arguing to "win", you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

I never mentioned winning anywhere in that. You can still be right and wrong in an argument without arguing for the sole purpose of "winning".

I was kind of agreeing, but I don't think there's anything fruitless about a discussion with no "right" answer. Philosophy builds rhetoric and helps define and shape how you view life. Also, ego shouldn't factor into this in the first place; the goal should always be to teach and learn. I realize that it often does factor in despite that, but it's not essential to argument.

My apologies, I read it first in an odd tone.

I suppose you are right about debates with no true answer, though I try not to dabble much in philosophy and ambiguous subjects.