An enlightening chat

ADreamOfLiberty: We are real people? I thought you had a picture of a dog as your picture and your name is a "ADreamofLiberty." Are you a mutant dog who has the capacity to read and type? If so, I think I may need to check into a hospital to be checked out. I also don't think I am a cartoon character who name is Tophatdoc. The Internet is the furthest from reality as one can get. This is why adult males can feign to be teenage boys and go into teen chat rooms. This is also the reason why people think they can be who they want and act how they want with little to no repercussions. The Internet is a place for anonymity. The only way you would be able to do that in the real world is with a mask and that can simply be removed by someone.

admin: I find the two incomparable honestly. When you engage in an online debate, does your opponent's lips quiver and they begin to talk fast? Or do they stumble over their words trying to make up information as they go along? In a formal debate, does one have several days to reply to someone who is at arms' length? In a formal debate, does one talk to a real person or a character that was dreamed up out of someone's imagination? Does a formal debate takes days or an hour or two?

The Internet is a large database based on information that users put in it. In a formal debate, one does not have access to such a database while debating. One can not manipulate one's appearance, name, or location with ease. One cannot spend an entire day searching for facts to find a rebuttal. One will not make infuriating claims unless one is capable of defending oneself. Many online debaters are not capable of feigning like they possess knowledge in the real world that they don't posses. Has trolling happened in the real world where people can constantly spam? I think not.

Tophatdoc: For the record, I never go anonymously online. Just because some people behave differently online doesn't mean you should assume everybody does.

Tophatdoc: You've pointed out very well that there are differences, but you forget that there are also similarities. The presence of differences makes things distinguishable, but not incomparable. Books and scrolls may be very different but both can be compared in that they are vessels for written knowledge. Online and RL debates may be different but both are competitions of persuasion through different media.

admin: The Internet is known for anonymity. You personally may not engage in it but I would be skeptical if someone said the majority of people don't engage in it.

Henceforth, "there are no girls on the Internet."

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/there-are-no-girls-on-the-internet

Tophatdoc: But it's not fair to criticize online debating on the grounds that we might be characters. Who knows, maybe some guy enters a RL debate tournament too under a false name. Ultimately the fact that you don't know is not a substantive attack on the system.

admin: I find online debating is a different form of communication altogether that is why I find it incomparable to RL debates. This is also why I reject the idea that a comments and forums sections of any website would ever replace public forums for discourse and debate. How one thinks and behave on here is different then in the real world. There is a lack of responsiveness on the Internet. The senses aroused from a conversation or a discussion(nervousness, anxiousness, excitement) are exceptionally difficult to imitate via any form of online communication. So our imaginations are left to run wild like we are reading a book on what is and what is not taking place.

I think the closest thing that compares to online debating is academic arguments in journals, articles, and essays. But even then an academic argument is not back and forth. I find the skills required in online debating skills are based on short hand writing skills.

Strangely, as a Futurist I am highly skeptical of any form of indirect communication(texting, emailing, commenting). I feel that it can be a danger to social skills in the real world which may become regressive and primitive if technology is used to replace direct communication. So it is not a contempt of online debating but a skepticism of the results of indirect communication.

Tophatdoc: There's scientific proof directly linking the development of the internet to the reduction of youth political disengagement metrics, such as voter apathy. In fact, practically every philosopher worth their salt predicted this before the concept of an internet was even developed. The same happened with the development of newspapers, television, and most other media. Would be happy to send you more on this if you like, I did do my final-year research paper on this after all.

I find it troubling that you see debate as just a form of communication. It's a form of competition where the object is persuasion. Nothing about the word connotes any specific form of communication at all. This is the same sort of argument used by purists of different debating formats in RL; people saying things like "this format is the only REAL kind of debating!"

admin: I would be interested in that information you have. I would be skeptical if the philosophers you mention come to the same conclusion as me. I don't think technology is the problem. I think it is our abuse of technology that is the problem because human beings have a habit of abusing things(ex. alcohol, farming/soil erosion, overexploitation hunting of animals).

Debating is a form of communication, strictly according to definition. Are ideas not being exchanged? Debate is a certain type of speech. Speech is merely a verbal form of communication.

communication: "The imparting or exchanging of information or news"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/communication

Tophatdoc: "Debating is a form of communication, strictly according to definition."
No. Debate involves communication, but that doesn't mean it is communication.

"Debate is a certain type of speech."
Why must debate be verbal.

Tophatdoc: Those are avatars, it is precisely the fact that you know I am not a mutant dog in cyber space that was point. You know I am a human typing on a computer, and I know the same as you.

I use the internet for anonymity because I couldn't debate what I want to debate in real life without repercussions I do not deserve. It has nothing to do with dishonesty (which I know you didn't mention, but which is the only plausible root of your objection).

I object to what you find important that is being lost.

You say the internet is anonymous, you don't know who I really am. You can't see my lips quiver, you can't see me stumble over words as I try to make up information.

What does that matter? Do you think a stutter or speech impairment is relevant to someone's argument? Attributes and characteristics of a person are almost always irrelevant to debate, classified as the informal fallacy ad hominem for that good reason.

admin: Debate is verbal by definition because a debate is a formal discussion.

Debate: "A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/debate

Discussion: "The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/discussion

ADreamOfLiberty: Your assumption is wrong and baseless. As I implied to admin, the Internet is a heaven on earth where people can be who they wish and act how they wish. That is nowhere near the realm of reality. It has nothing to do with people being dishonest in particular because some people can be who they really are on the Internet without worry. Anonymity is a form of protection online for better or worse.

It does matters. If this was a discussion in the real world it would of ended a long time ago. This is the Internet and that is why you can take hours or days to reply to a message at your leisure.You can willfully ignore my comments with ease by just scrolling over my comments. In the real world one can try to ignore someone but that is difficult when the person follows you hurling banter or insults. On top of all that many online debaters can keep mentioning fallacies when in formal debates such strictures are hardly addressed or brought up because it is irrelevant to whether an argument is correct or incorrect but only to reasoning of an argument.

Also online debate is not a debate according to the Oxford dictionary.

Tophatdoc: formal discussion =/= verbal. Discussion = "consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate." ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussion ) - not that I agree with your definition of debate though as I see it as being far too limiting (ie the economist's debate series in print, online debating - even televised live verbal debates may fail the first definition if not confined to a particular topic or held in public).

admin: My opinion:
Oxford University Press > Random House

Tophatdoc: According to the Oxford dictionary it is. Definition 1.2 - A detailed treatment of a topic in speech or writing.

That allows a discussion to be in writing form.

Furthermore would you claim that a mute person can't debate? No, there is nothing special about sonic vibrations. What matters is the words.

Fallacies always matter because reasoning is the only thing of value in an argument.

If you admit some people are being who they really are, what is your point? Weren't you responding to my statement that we are real people?

Tophatdoc: Oxford. The dictionary that claimed "tweet" was the word of the year two years ago, and had "yolo" as the runner up. Riiiiight....

admin: Yolo makes people sound stupid. No offense.

Pinkie: I think "yolo" makes people sound efficient.

nzlockie: No.