Has the internet changed the nature of debates?

In high school when I thought of the debate team, I thought of a couple of somewhat nerdy, fairly intellectual boys and girls who were not afraid to speak. While I always thought I would be a fairly good debater, I have never been one to speak that much, especially in front of a lot of people.

To me the answer to some of these questions seems blantantly obvious but what do you guys think? Has the internet gave the more introspective, quieter people a chance to provide argument and debate easier? Do you think some of these people are better debaters than some of the outspoken debaters? Does the ability to cite sources or add pictures convince you more than just text? does better grammar make you more convinced by an argument?

Just some questions I have, answer some or all and feel free to post any you think about as well.

I feel the ability to add pictures and site sources can show a lot about a person and helps with many debates, it's cool when you can shape your writing and argument to represent the most of the argument you are trying to convey that it can.

 

I think it's a two-edged sword...as most things are.

It has certainly given people who feel they have something to say not only a platform, but also more-or-less instant access to their audience, not to mention a far wider circle of contemporaries.

My route, from the late 1970s onwards, was via xeroxed zines. Debate was fairly limited due to the sheer amount of time it took put one together and get it out to your audience. And at best my circulation was around 300.

Now I can write this , publish it with a few minutes and what's the audience ? Potentially infinite !

The downside with forums - not so much with HipForums, credit where due - is that there are a lot of people out there with nothing to say, but damn well intent on saying it !

I'm thinking of one forum in particular where any attempt at debate was hijacked by people posting rubbish not in the least connected with the subject of the thread. Of course, that was partly down to poor moderation.

I dont go there anymore...

 

I'm still trying to decide whether the internet has really made us all more connected or made us all more isolated. I once met a kid who told me the only socializing he had done over the last six years was on the internet.

But yeah, I would definitely say the internet has had an impact on debate. Now it's not being a good public speaker so much as being a good writer.

I'm happy about that myself cuz speaking is not my strong point, but at same time I do enjoy a good debate now and then.

 

Hmmm...perhaps this thread proves that although the potential for debate has been changed for the better, when it comes down to it, the vast majority are consumers rather than creators ?

It's that old 95% thing - cant recall where I first heard this, possibly in a book by Colin Wilson, but basically - back in, I think, the Korean War, it was discovered by the communist side that only a certain percentage of POWs caused problems - attempted escapes, disobedience, etc.

Weed them out and isolate them in a high-security camp and the rest could be left with minimal guards, because by themselves they'd never really get around to doing anything.

The percentage of volatile trouble-causers apparently worked out at around 5% of the total POW population.

This equates nicely, of course, with Sturgeon's Law - 95% of everything is crap - named for Science Fiction author Theodore Sturgeon who when someone told him that 95% of SF is crap, is supposed to have replied "yeah, but 95% of EVERYTHING is crap".

So my offering for discussion is that although the potential for meaningful debate is open to all computer users, probably only 5% will actually make use of it to its full potential.

 

Tend to agree^^^...depressing though. (Sigh)

Also, concise, civil debate is boring to "TV-heads"
Observe the popularity of reality shows.
Apparently, It's entertaining watching people acting nasty towards one another.

ZW

 

Yeah, dont they get enough of that in everyday life ?

 

Let's not spend too much time commiserating, lest we fall into the same mold.

 

Sounds like the bell curve.

The thing about a good formal face to face debate is preparation and time. You can't depend on google, you can't phone a friend, and there are no lifelines. You have to know the subject when you start. You can't find that on line. The closest thing would be a real time chat room where only the debaters could post and everyone else could only watch.

To answer the original questions: Proper grammar does project more of an educated opinion, but citing sources in an internet forum is not very impressive. It's too easy to research on the fly. But, put a time limit on it and require credible sources and you've got my interest. It's all about rules and equity, both sides should have equal technology; for instance, one person with high speed and the other on dial up would be unfair.

That said, I still like a good debate in any forum.

.