I hate Internet arguments

I. Really. Hate. Internet arguments.

Why?

It's not that I can't argue - give me any topic and put me in any side, I can argue for hours, days.

It's just that I can't just sit in front of computer/holding my smartphone the all day, waiting for others' response, because I got stuff to do, studying, work, carrying out vengeance, etc.

So the situation I utterly abhor, yet I find myself getting into so often, is when I make a long point, and someone makes an equally, or longer rebuttal. If I respond to that, it will go on for longer, and I ain't got no time for that. But if I don't respond, then everyone in the thread is going to think that I'm not responding because I got nothing to say and is defeated (for your note, no, that's almost never the case).

Worst of all; when I don't get the last word.

Sometimes the discussion goes long enough, but crap, it's past my sleeping time (which is past 1AM) and I really need to go to sleep. So I go to bed...and the next morning I wake up, my opponent(s) posted the rebuttal again.

Oh bloody Hell. If I post a response to that, that means the discussion starts once again, and if I don't...grrrrrrrr.

"I am going to bed. I have to go. I will resume this discussion tomorrow. Thank you for your patience."

There. You get to leave the debate with your ego intact.

Yeah, but that means I have to start it over tomorrow. I don't know if this applies to anyone else, but if I discussed something until that it's time for me to hit the bed, that means I have been arguing over it for at least a couple of hours. Also, there are times when some arguments, after looking at it upon getting a sleep, doesn't really seem worth continuing again. :/

If it's worth arguing over for hours, it's worth waiting a few hours of sleep to resume. Alternatively, if you wake up and realize it wasn't worth continuing, then it doesn't matter if people think you lost, you should hit yourself for wasting time on a pointless argument in the first place.

The latter point, I cannot argue against.

Parable are you brainwashing him to join the dark-side?

Seriously, giving helpful and mature advice?

What kind of internetter are you?

You can always just avoid the argument entirely.

It's what I do. Because really, no one ever wins those things. They're just frustrating and a waste of time.

I usually get involved in one really controversial one because my views are different than most people's, but it's super frustrating when somebody won't even just LISTEN.

I don't like getting into arguments, but i do have a dark side that stands to the side watching other people's arguments and enjoys every second of it.

....I'm not a bad person. But anyway, i don't bother bringing my views up, too "controversial"

I hate it when internet arguments destroy formalities.

I think it wouldn't be such a problem...if I didn't care so much about my ego. :/

You should give your id and your superego more attention.

Internet arguments aren't really as much as to convince the person you're arguing with that you're right as much as it is constantly replying to save face. Unless one person is objectively wrong, in the since you are arguing something that has a definite answer, you're only arguing to protect yourself.

Or to be heard, to have your view at least be known or to lend support to one already stated.

A question: are we talking about debating or fighting? (Both of which can be described by the word "argument".) I think that the former at least can be quite useful (and I do think that debating can change minds, whether it does so often or not): it disseminates ideas and arguments.

There is as a general rule of thumb very little actual debate on the internet as a whole. Arguing usually refers to, well, spats, to be polite.

Either way I'm too dumb to get involved without feeling frustrated.

Looking back at arguments I had in this site and other sites, I couldn't help but realize that I was trying so hard to get the last word. Not the right word, last word.

edited 7th Sep '14 2:34:37 PM by dRoy

Honestly, I think that's an underlying problem in most Internet arguements.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think you can only have proper arguments if you are talking at the time, be it you and the other being in the same place, or on the phone.

If you and your opponent live in the different time zone....

I agree. A proper argument can only be done face-to-face.

edited 7th Sep '14 2:44:07 PM by LogoP

When that's not available, like I said, being on phone provides good substitute. Not perfect, but decent enough. Also, whoa, sudden creepy avatar change there. And yes, I totally recognize the art.

edited 7th Sep '14 2:45:41 PM by dRoy

I can't enjoy myself a good, long argument over the phone because I just keep worrying about the bill :/

Junji Ito is right up there with Stephen King when it comes to favourite horror masters.

edited 7th Sep '14 2:49:38 PM by LogoP

I must disagree, if only for my experience on academic networks - it's quite possible if your opponent gets the right tone from you, and explains why they say what they do.

Arguments about subjectivity are something I cannot solve. If the goal is to absorb the opposer into your beliefs, what does one gain?