Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!bionet!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: The Dynamics of Debate on USENET
Message-ID: <35033@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 26 Sep 89 19:41:24 GMT
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Lines: 164

Sort of as a philosophical followup to my comments on argument and debate on
USENET, I thought it'd be different to describe the various forms of
argument that go on here on the net and why some styles of debate are better
than others. If this sort of stuff bores you, well, sorry -- there seems to
be enough interest to post this (and maybe even start a discussion or two).

First, a quick and dirty definition. What is an argument/debate? (I'll use
the terms interchangeably. They really aren't the same, but for this
discussion it doesn't make sense differentiating). It is where someone with
a given point of view attempts to persuade people who are either neutral or
in disagreement to accept the view he's proposing. An argument can (and
probably will) have multiple views with multiple people trying to sway the
opinion of the listener.

To be successful, an argument has to stick to the facts. You can build a
case around the facts and generate a powerful and persuasive rhetoric to
deliver the facts, but when push comes to shove, your facts have to be
better than their facts. 

An example: [note: numbers are made up. Don't yell at me, my reference book
is at home]:

Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: The sky is green.
Speaker A: You are incorrect. The atmosphere refracts light at a wavelength
    of 450 Angstroms, which is in the blue part of the visible light spectrum.
Speaker B: Oh, yes, you're right. I'm sorry.

When confronted by facts, Speaker B was forced to admit that he was
incorrect. The sky, in fact, is not green. He could also change his position
without being embarassed because facts are facts and it's not a crime to be
wrong. Even on USENET. Note also how the argument stuck to a factual,
non-emotional basis, making it easier for the two to come to a resolution.

This kind of argument is almost extinct on USENET. The most common version
of the USENET argument goes like this:

Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green. If you don't think so, you're
    an idiot!
Speaker A: Listen, bozo! The atmosphere refracts light at a wavelength
    of 450 Angstroms, which is in the blue part of the visible light
    spectrum.
Speaker B: You @#$#@$! How dare you interject facts into an argument!

Note the difference between the two arguments. In this version, Speaker B
ignored the facts and returned an emotional rebuttal. This is known as an
"If you can't win, insult his mother" argument. The end result is that
both speakers are now mad at each other, with the level of emotional
diatribe escalating at every path. Another problem is that the original
reason for the argument has been completely forgotten in the heat of the
moment. 

This is why so little gets done on USENET. Every time there is a
disagreement, the facts get scattered to the winds while everyone digs a
foxhole and tosses insults and abuse at each other. It's impossible to win
an argument when you are off the topic, but the debate tactic most often
used on USENET is to immediately shift the topic from the discussion at hand
to an emotional, personal attack.

There's a common variation to this argument form:

Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: If you don't think so, you're an idiot!
Speaker A: Listen, bozo!
Speaker B: You @#$#@$!

This is almost the same as the previous argument, except that we now have
absolutely no idea what Speaker B thinks except that he disagrees with
speaker A. In the previous form, we at least knew he felt the sky was green.
This is called a content-free rebuttal -- we know they're disagreeing, but
we have no idea why Speaker B disagrees, what his alternate position is or
why he thinks Speaker A is wrong. This makes it impossible for anyone other
than Speaker B to understand the issues and come to any kind of resolution
(except, perhaps, that Speaker B is a twit).

A second common form of USENET argument is the "no it isn't" argument. It
can be defined like this:

Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.

Eventually, Speaker A gets tired of endless, repetitive arguing and shuts
up. Speaker B then claims victory, since he spoke last. This 'victory by
default' form of arguing has been known to go on at some level for months or
years between some people. It is also very boring and doesn't accomplish
anything. The United States Government has refined this to an art form with
the filibuster, in which a small, noisy group of legislators can bring
everything to a halt indefinitely until everyone gets tired and goes away.
This has been used with great success both there and here on USENET by
people who know they're going to lose if the issue comes up for a vote, so
they just refuse to let people vote on it by bickering trivialities
endlessly. This is the "if you don't do it our way, we're going to take
*your* toys and go home" debate.

Finally, there is a form of argument essentially unique to USENET known as
the Spelling Flame. This is a modified form of the abuse/attack mode
argument where, if you can't discredit a person's facts, you try to shift
the discussion away from the topic by attacking the presentation itself (and
by implication, the speaker):

Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: The sky is green.
Speaker A: You are incorrect. The atmosphere refracts light at a wavelength
    of 450 Angstroms, which is in the blue part of the visible light spectrum.
Speaker B: Everyone knows it's spelled "Angstrome", you dit! Geez, what an
    idiot you are that you can't even spell correctly! Why should anyone
    listen to *you*!

Note how we're suddenly arguing spelling and grammar, not wavelengths. Note
also how Speaker B stuck in an attack against Speaker A by using the
spelling error as an implicit discreditation of what is, in reality, a
correct fact. 

Note finally that, in fact, Speaker *B* got the spelling wrong, which will
cause a double-back spelling flamewar guaranteed to make sure that nobody
will be able to discuss wavelengths in that group for months to come.

A few final comments on discussions. If you look at the various forms of
argument, you should notice one important thing. Only in the first form,
where the discussion is limited to facts and the topic at hand, is there a
resolution. In the other arguments, Speaker B successfully deflects Speaker
A from winning the argument, but lack of a resolution can not be considered
a resolution or victory for the other side. All that's been done is made
sure that nothing happened (which may be what the opposition wants, but
which isn't a good thing for the net in general).

Lots of people wonder why it seems to take forever to get things done on
USENET. If you analyze *how* things are done on USENET, it becomes obvious.
The standard form of discussion of USENET can best be described as "feint
and distract" -- rather than allow someone to win an argument, many people
on USENET will simply try to get the argument to go away or change
directions. Not because they think their side is necessarily right, but
because their ego won't allow them to admit defeat.

As long as that continues on USENET, it'll continue to move in geologic
time. The key in all this is simple: when you're involved in a discussion,
before you post a followup, ask yourself a couple of simple questions:

o Is what I'm going to say have anything to do with the topic?
o Has what I'm going to say been said before?
o Am I sticking to the discussion? Or am I shifting to an emotional, 
  personal aspect of the discussion?
o Would I be pissed if someone said that about me?

If you sit and think about it and avoid deflecting topics or moving onto
tangents, maybe we could accomplish things around here...




-- 

Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl
Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.