If you suspect accounts of not being here for legitimate purposes you are welcome to email your suspicions to us at [email protected]. But it's not ok to make accusations of astroturfing in HN threads. The degradation it causes to the discourse is obvious from the current discussion alone: wherever it comes up turns into a toxic waste pond.

Personally accusing paulhauggis of being a shill just because you don't like his politics is one of the worst examples I've seen. I think you owe him an apology. Even if you're right that someone refuses to change his mind when shown superior arguments, the only thing that entitles you to accuse them of is human nature.

If you feel anyone's opinion that isn't your own is somehow FUD, that's a problem.

For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments. I also happen to believe Fox News isn't as terrible as a lot of people like to think (they are, after all, the news network with the most viewership and highest ratings year after year).

Point being, you shouldn't attack individuals because they don't agree with you (or the popular opinion). You should attack their argument.

And clearly someone who's invested enough time into getting 1K+ upvotes isn't a drive-by-night account. I get suspicious when new accounts post that were created on or around when the article was posted, and/or accounts with very long account history but almost no comments and no upvotes (why go 500 days with no comment but now you post?).

If your opinion of what makes a news network good or terrible is based on whether or not they get high viewers and ratings, I'm not quite sure what to say. No one who calls Fox News terrible is doing so because they think no one is watching, and I can't believe you actually believe that.

> Point being, you shouldn't attack individuals because they don't agree with you (or the popular opinion). You should attack their argument.

Pointing out instances of him ignoring coherent rebuttals to his argument is an attack on the argument. His argument is weak because he is ignoring responses that refute his argument.

Where does he make that claim? It sounds like you are trying to discredit him based on conjecture.

Thank you. I think this is sufficient grounds for me to avoid wasting any of my time arguing with you.

Conversely, has anyone managed to change your mind here in this thread?

Probably not...

The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion.

Some debate for sport/fun, others to make a point. In the end a good debate serves to strengthen one's own ideals via plugging of logic holes poked by the opposite party. Occasionally someone may change their viewpoint -- but only someone with a very strong ego would believe their sole argument was so compelling...

If you surround yourself in an echo chamber, it's easy to believe your viewpoint is the only correct one.

Applied to both parties in the argument, yes it is. Argument is digging for truth. The most productive outcome is for some or all of the parties involved shift their beliefs to more accurately reflect reality.

Just to clarify - when you argue, are you attempting to present the actual reasons you believe your point to be true? If not, then you are arguing in bad faith, and contributing heat to the discussion rather than light. If you really are arguing in good faith, then it's just plain crazy to strengthen your position upon being confronted with flaws in your reasoning.

> Some debate for sport/fun

In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling".

> In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling".

That's not always true. Have you never had a sporting debate with a friend who's opinion you knew full well going in?

In addition, a common debate preparation tactic for "serious" debates is often to argue from the opponent's side. This forces one to better understand the opposition's stance, better prepare for common responses and assertions, and discover potential logic flaws in one's own position.

Huh? You mean have I argued with a friend about a belief of theirs I was aware of ahead of time? Yes? If you're asking if I was disagreeing with them just for fun, while pretending to be serious, then no, because I try not to be a jerk to my friends.

I'm well aware of debate tactics and devil's advocacy, and for the most part I think they're epistemic poison. It's great to examine your own arguments for flaws, because you might actually be wrong! But the idea that you would do so merely for the sake of patching up any holes you find is revolting.

I suggest you google "arguments as soldiers" if you're not familiar with the phrase. Not for the sake of learning or gaining perspective or anything, it'll just help you understand where I'm coming from so you'll be better-equipped to take me down.

Seriously guy?

I find all of your arguments to be talking points. How can we possibly have a reasonable dialog? I have just insulted you by explicitly stating that you are insincere in your position.

This is how you're treating everyone who disagrees with you. It is utterly unproductive. You are executing a Denial of Service attack on any reasonable dialog.

Please define "talking points"... I find it often means an often repeated argument that my side doesn't agree with.

See upthread for an example of this.

Repeated argument I do agree with...consensus.

Part of the value of hackernews is that you get informed people presenting ideas that you might not otherwise have considered. Attacking someone because they violate orthodoxy is something that is lampooned in this comic. YOU'RE THE GUY IN THE COMIC! http://xkcd.com/386/