Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bbn!bbn.com!levin
From: levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The Dynamics of Debate on USENET
Message-ID: <46115@bbn.COM>
Date: 26 Sep 89 20:55:16 GMT
References: <35033@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: levin@BBN.COM (Joel B Levin)
Organization: BBN Communications Corporation
Lines: 27

In article <35033@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
|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).
  etc.

This is a good analysis of how one kind of debate/argument can break
down on Usenet.  Unfortunately, this kind of debate (about some
*facts*) is, I think, in the minority.  The same sort of debates take
place over matters of opinion and over matters of belief, where facts
may play only a supporting role (and on both sides) or may be more or
less irrelevant.  The types of argument Chuq describes apply here as
well.  But as the arguers can never come to an agreement by use of a
reference source, the "reasonable" argument does not terminate and
opportunities for the argument to degenerate into flames continue as
long as the thread does not die.  And the more controversial the
subject, the more likely flames will result -- on the original
argument and on tangent threads as well.  And this happens in comp.
and sci. as easily as in soc. and talk.

	/JBL
=
Nets: levin@bbn.com  |
 or {...}!bbn!levin  |  
POTS: (617)873-3463  |