How to debate on the Internet

The beautiful thing about the internet is the ability for a number of people to discuss varied opinions online without limitation.

The ugly thing about the internet is the inability of a number of people to sensibly debate these opinions without being personal or misunderstanding the basic principles of debate.

Herewith a primer on how people can debate online better.

You don’t have to respond.

The first rule of thumb. If you know a person or a subject has a tendency to rile you, to trigger some negative emotion, walk away. Keep it moving and save your Twitter fingers for another day.

Debates vs Arguing

Most definitions around a debate involve the use of people putting forward an argument and then having that position or viewpoint challenged. Making room for rebuttals, etc. For the purpose of this article let me explain the difference between the argument of a point and arguing with a person.

An argument in a debate is a well thought out viewpoint. The more formal types of debate include opening, motion, rebuttal and closing positions. Examples such as Oxford, Mock Trial, Model United Nations, Lincoln-Douglas also have an underlying notion of respect to support this framework. Even in a contentious clash of opinions that formality is important to ensure that the intellectual side of a debate will not be dominated by an emotive one.

To argue is to engage in an emotive, contentious conflict, to force an opponent in your way of thinking and to prove a point. Not listening but going in on someone just because you disagree regardless of the consequences. Unfortunately too often this seems to be the prevalent style online.

Arguments, not arguing.

Be kind.

No matter how passionate we are about a subject you cannot enter into what would be a fruitful conversation if your default is being unkind. As adults, I am always stunned how infantile many of us can become just because we disagree with someone and will be so unkind and aggressive, either directly or passively.

Being kind is also about avoiding the temptation to take the “higher ground” just to attack the spelling or grammar of the author or other contributors to the debate.

This leads in many cases to ad hominem attacks, a logical fallacy that targets the person instead of the point. I will come back to this.

Seek clarity

One of the best ways to temper assumptions is to ask better questions.

If a position or thought has been given by someone it is so easy to read into what is being said than trying to understand what the author is saying. In hermeneutics, we were always encouraged to approach texts with a mind for understanding meaning, background, and context of what the author is saying (exegesis) as opposed to applying our own biases and agendas when interpreting the text (eisegesis)

One way of seeking clarity is to look at the author’s previous writing if that is available. Get a sense of their tone, pacing, humour, or not, as the case may be. Often that saves an otherwise fruitful debate going off in a direction where it doesn’t need to.

Parking our biases

We all come with the cognitive biases that shape our view of the world. Consciously and subconsciously, our lived experience will shape how we see things written or otherwise. If you aren’t aware of these biases then you will wade into argument totally unaware that you are bringing your own baggage. This will stop you from appreciating a different point of view. And worse still reduce your ability to empathize with another person or look at it through their shoes, even if you still end up disagreeing.

Search up biases such as anchoring, confirmation biases, halo effect, bandwagon effect, survivorship, etc. and you will probably see the many instances you have witnessed this online, TV panels, etc.

Taking some time to read those and understand when we can park our own biases helps us to process our reactions to discussion both on a professional and personal basis.

Logical Fallacies

If you are going to wade into a debate, please think about the logic of your argument or position. It helps bolster your position if you think about the logical path you want to take.

Examples of logical fallacies include

• Strawman. When you build a case that can easily be knocked over, hence strawman
• Ad hominem. When you attack the person instead of the position (as mentioned above
• Emotional Appeals. When your argument is based on feelings not fact.
• False dilemma. When two opposing views are presented as the only options when they are not

There are quite a lot to be honest, too much to list here, but please feel free to check out logical fallacies using your search engine of choice, if you need more clarity on how to prevent yourself from going down this route or spotting it when someone else uses it in a debate.

Very often we can miss out on great learnings because people don’t pause enough to think before debating online. I hope this article can help all of us to keep each other accountable when engaging in debate be it mild or provocative. Taking debates away from being a binary competition for willy waving and fanny flashing to a more pleasant way of seeing the world through different eyes.

Happy debating.