The thrust of their point is that the time spent engaging isn’t worth it for the person debating, not whether it does or doesn’t impact the perspectives on those that view the debate.
Yes, and this is my main point of disagreement with them. My point is that there is plenty of value if you want there to be.
If you want someone to educate you, the polite thing to do is ask. This kind of "stealth learning" where you say things you don't believe, expecting to learn via corrections, is inconsiderate and inefficient. I know people who have lost practically all of their friends because they couldn't bring themselves to acknowledge anyone else's expertise in either the subject itself or how to explain it. Don't be that guy.
ETA: Even if what you want is a spirited debate, mutual consent and respect matter. A voluntary debate can be a lot of fun for everyone, contrarian provocation out of the blue much less so.
As you said, (I'm paraphrasing) there are often better ways to go about things.
As you mentioned, time, place, and consent are important. You see this a lot in forums dedicated to debate. What consent means in general forms like this one is a little bit more ambiguous. Some people are looking to debate and some people are looking to just talk.
OFC, the other people need to be interested in arguing. Random debate is a valuable skill, and I don't know that I 100% agree that "consent" is important. There's a difference between harassing someone and letting them know you don't agree (we call that discourse), if they're not interested in continuing the conversation a lot of people will just stop talking. Otherwise, you don't get to say things and then have some shield that nobody will disagree with you, putting it in the public forum itself is the only consent needed.
The only major danger is when someone doesn't reply at all. The OP's article ignores the fact that argument is often not just about being right, but about winning the perception. I think it is probably better (with someone who is not being disingenuous or harassing) to state if you don't have time or interest to reply, rather than letting the other argument hang -
- the last, simplest thing said usually sticks out in onlookers brains, not the 5 paragraphs of well (or not well) thought out response.
That's why I said it is ambiguous what consent means. Engaging is always discretionary as nobody is forced to respond. That said, I think there is value in people being more clear about their intent, so that people have more information when deciding to engage.
This leads to higher quality debate and discussion than when two people have different notions of what the topic and purpose of the conversation is.
Unfortunately, it is also unreasonably effective. I mean, learning by being wrong is how learning works. It's how science works.
Often the fastest way to find the right answer to a problem is to loudly and confidently proclaim the wrong answer.
As the ancient advice goes: want to know how to do something in Linux? Tell a bunch of Linux users Linux can't do that.
Sometimes I argue things I hope aren't true, but just don't have a good argument against in the hopes someone better equipped will come along and convince me I'm wrong.
I think as long as you're civil and willing to admit defeat then it isn't really a problem.
My statement is more that if you're interested in external impact, exposing someone to a new idea should be treated as the most likely outcome, so assess your effort spent accordingly. I've gotten a lot of value out of reading the different sides of other people's arguments, but I know I personally wouldn't have wanted to spend time being part of it.
No one will remember who won an argument on the internet, they'll just remember that everyone involved is the kind of person who gets in arguments on the internet.
I'm not even sure that's really limited to just the internet either - outside of very niche cases, you don't win any argument, you just become known as someone who likes to argue, and thus you need to decide if this is a venue you want to become known as someone who argues about things. There's venues that may be good, wholesome, and useful, but it's been an axiom that's definitely stopped me from contributing to a lot of arguments.
The problem with discussions on the internet is that there's a lot of ignorance and ideology out there and a lack of interest in applying a modicum of thought, research and critical thinking. People know what they know because they know what they know, and that's the end of it. This can be incredibly frustrating to those of us who make an attempt to live in some kind of an objective realty, where arguments from reason and facts are considered and respected.
On the internet, the earth can be flat and there is no amount of math and science you can deploy that will convince a certain audience otherwise.
The only exception to this rule are narrowly focused professional discussion groups. HN fits this description ONLY when the topic at hand tends to be in the realm of specific engineering disciplines. In a wide range of other areas, including technical areas, discussions on HN can be just as dumb and pointless as almost anywhere else.
I've been using online forums of various kinds of four decades. You could find good, bad and ugly on USENET and the same is true today in various forms. The only thing that has changed is that the size of the audience and the reach of the nonsense have expanded.
Relevant:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/19/yale-researchers-how-highly-...
What you neglect totally are these:
1. this can be fact of arguments anywhere, and the key to having a decent one is for all members to act in good faith
2. the internet affords the ability to find sources quickly and quote them, unlike non-internet (especially before smart phones) where it is 'who can say things most convincingly or plead to already existing biases' (which of course does happen, but at least opposition has a chance)
3. on the internet you are not arguing with one person, you are holding a public debate which is forever etched into history for anyone to read
And, yes, in real life you better know what you are talking about. You can’t google yourself out of it, particularly in professional settings.
I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold.
You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince someone, and if you can't do that, then there is no point. But there can be value in making an argument specifically in bettering your own understanding of a point.
With all that said, I will admit that some random news site's comments probably aren't the best place to do that.