One of the hallmarks of unproductive arguments is that they keep going. Once almost everything has been said, and you don’t believe you’ll be convinced by the other person’s position, it seems like being able to let it go is a good thing.
When things are going badly, taking it private seems unlikely to assist.
Slightly related, some general rules for internet debates which I think have merit:
Arguments from Authority are only OK in limited circumstances—if the expertise you’re claiming is clearly outside the expertise on the board. If it’s a rationality board and the discussion goes to table tennis rules or online bridge cheating, actual expertise is useful. Otherwise, don’t care.
No ad hominem attacks. It doesn’t matter if your opposite-side debater hurls puppies into wood chippers. (Well, it matters, but not to the argument.)
Let it go. You don’t need the last word. If the others can’t tell… well, they probably can. If it’s a clear personal attack on you, that’s harder—I recommend an explicit statement that further lack of participation isn’t a concession. But if you have two people who need the last word, that’s quagmire city.
If you might have been wrong, admit it. LW has a substantial number of people who follow this; it makes the debates much better. I generally consider silence after some opposing point to be disagreement, despite the fact that many people in many places only shut up after their position has been shown to be clearly mistaken.
No troll-answering. Ever.
Finally, I agree with Academian that the discussion quality here is very good. Few people violate basic standards.
Hmmm.
One of the hallmarks of unproductive arguments is that they keep going. Once almost everything has been said, and you don’t believe you’ll be convinced by the other person’s position, it seems like being able to let it go is a good thing.
When things are going badly, taking it private seems unlikely to assist.
Slightly related, some general rules for internet debates which I think have merit:
Arguments from Authority are only OK in limited circumstances—if the expertise you’re claiming is clearly outside the expertise on the board. If it’s a rationality board and the discussion goes to table tennis rules or online bridge cheating, actual expertise is useful. Otherwise, don’t care.
No ad hominem attacks. It doesn’t matter if your opposite-side debater hurls puppies into wood chippers. (Well, it matters, but not to the argument.)
Let it go. You don’t need the last word. If the others can’t tell… well, they probably can. If it’s a clear personal attack on you, that’s harder—I recommend an explicit statement that further lack of participation isn’t a concession. But if you have two people who need the last word, that’s quagmire city.
If you might have been wrong, admit it. LW has a substantial number of people who follow this; it makes the debates much better. I generally consider silence after some opposing point to be disagreement, despite the fact that many people in many places only shut up after their position has been shown to be clearly mistaken.
No troll-answering. Ever.
Finally, I agree with Academian that the discussion quality here is very good. Few people violate basic standards.