I saw many good points and guidelines on what is or isn't conducive to debates and avoiding flame-wars and such. It's a personal list, but I find I agree with his opinions.
Like he lists four big things that derail arguments:
On Arguing wrote: * Meta-discussion
* Personal abuse
* Rhetorical games
* Batting away straw men
I find this personally true from NSG. Meta-discussion especially:
On Arguing wrote:I wish computers came with a little device like a virus checker that would reach out and administer an electric shock when someone’s about to make complaints about behavior that they themselves are guilty of.
A few keywords it would check for:
* misreading
* reading comprehension
* accusations
* insulting
* condescending
* whine
The shock should be dialled up if any of these are described as willful.
People hate unfairness, and they will be angry like big shaved bears if they’re accused of the same things they see you doing.
Personally— despite the impression that may be created by this page— I’m willing to tolerate some roughness. But not if the other person can’t take the same roughness back. If you’re insulting, accept that you’ll be insulted back.
But again, the main problem is that meta-discussion ends the actual discussion.
There is a recursive thing about meta-discussion where you wind up arguing about who said what when in a downward spiral, inspired by failure to read what has already been written, repetition, and then quibbling over minor things pages later.
Here's a bit that listed positive advice:
On Arguing wrote:# Be the most civil person in the discussion. If you’re watching other people argue, often the angriest person comes off the worst.
# Stick to the issues.
# Use evidence. Provide URLs or cite books or your own experience to back up your claims.
# Use ‘I’ not ‘you’ statements. Talk about the other guy’s ideas, not about the other guy.
# People hate non-recognition more than they object to disagreement. They want to feel that their point is understood and acknowledged.
It’s said that H.L. Mencken replied to all correspondents with the same statement: “There may be something in what you say.” Not a bad policy, unless the recipients compare notes.
# Admit when you don’t know, or were wrong.
# Acknowledge points of agreement. This doesn’t defuse the disagreements, but it’s polite, and tells people that you read everything.
# Choose your fights. Not everything is worth arguing about; nor is everyone a good arguing partner.
I find that doing the opposite of this almost always ends in flamewars or thread hijacking, and in general infuriate most people. When you're arguing with someone, and despite being wrong - they do not admit it, ever? Isn't that obnoxious? It makes you feel as if you have simply wasted time and been ignored.
Or how many times have you put some effort into writing a post, and someone comes along with a one-sentence comment that attempts to dismiss you completely, or seems to respond to something you didn't write? Again, it makes you feel as if you've been ignored. (Because you have been.)
Another part that struck out to me:
On Arguing wrote:Some debaters want to talk about you; and not knowing you, they resort to fantasy. Common tactics:
* Informing you what your position is. A conservative correspondent, for instance, once told me that he considered Hillary Clinton the leader of the liberals. Dude, who the hell cares what you, a non-liberal, “consider” to be our leader?
* Theorizing about your motivations, psychology, or your sins. Another correspondent once opined that I opposed Clinton’s impeachment because I must be a fornicator.
* Creating a brain-dead parody of your position and pointing out its deficiencies.
I was going to bold the most common and frustrating of those tactics but realized all three are very common and very frustrating. How many times over the years have you been pigeonholed by someone as a "liberal" or "bourgeois" or "Obama's Devoted Worshipper," or had someone ascribe a completely bogus position to you just to tear it down instead of what you actually said?
These are problems for discussion, on forums such as this one, and they aren't easily solved by rules against flaming or whatnot. They are obstacles to the flow of reasonable, worthwhile discussion. Reading this, and some threads and posts (including mine) lately I've decided to try to do all I can to avoid falling into these counter-productive traps.
