Is arguing on the internet a bad idea?

A fact based debate is acceptable but not an argument especially when it is opinion based. You can state your opinion and if need be clarify but it should end there. Being drawn into a personal attack or responding to one is totally detrimental to you.

With more and more companies who are hiring people or checking out consultants doing searches on various social media sources, demonstrating an argumentative nature, being lured into personal attacks or otherwise acting unprofessionally can have a negative impact on your competence and ability to work with others. Let others make fools of themselves and do not sink to their level.

Arguing or trying to resolve a dispute, misunderstanding or conflict should not be done on the Internet or even by email. The problem is these systems are asynchronous forms communications and result is people talking at each other (and hiding behind that) instead of talking directly with each other. If one can not walk down the hall or pick up the phone, offer the phone call. If that can't be done or is rebuffed, weigh the odds as Rebecca correctly did. Often the best course of action is to take the high road versus coming down to the level of the antagonist.

There's a popular one-liner, "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." While it is a laugh line, there is a kernel of truth, and the risk is that you might be engaging an unworthy opponent in what may be a permanent record.

This is especially true of the internet, where untruths enter the public psyche through the 24x7 drumbeat of electronic media. These untruths are then used to bolster an argument, which then serves to compound the frustration for both parties.

Given the indelible nature of the internet, choose your battles carefully....

The problem with the internet and blogs is that you are open to the interpretation and perceptions of the readers. These may be incorrect and you find yourself defending your good intentions As Rebecca has pointed out.
I have three blogs and participate in many LinkedIn discussions and have at times had a hard time clarifying my statements to others. I had to leave a group because the group manager went on a vicious attack toward me even after I, like Rebecca, offered a agree to disagree.
I think Christine has the right idea in that verbal communication or better face to face can provide a much clearer form of communication. As I stated the printed word is up to the perception and interpretation of the reader.

It really depends on what the argument is about.

As Gail said, "fact based debate is acceptable". Even so, you need to know when to stop before things take on a life of their own. Be able to make and defend your points objectively, but if you see that the conflict is turning personal, it's time to get out gracefully.

It's too easy to get caught up in a melee of rebuttals and counterpoints, and at the end, even if you win the argument, your reputation may suffer for it. No one needs Pyrrhic victories...

-ASB: http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Alex,

I suppose I automatically reach toward the "angry dispute" definition as opposed to either "supporting a case" or "presenting a statement of fact". Maybe I have watched too many big city TV news reports?!?! ...lol

So... You'll have no argument from me on the need to clarify the definition of the word, argument. ;)

Further, given your added clarification of an argument as that of a civil debate, in accordance with that of an organized society, I would then believe there are educational benefits to be derived from lively, fact-finding, non-ambiguous interaction, on the internet and would, therefore, not be a bad idea.

It's interesting and fun to read these comments. Personally, I just shake my head at the possible damage that a personal record established on multiple servers, and taken out of context, can wreak. At the same time, I get "the edginess", the non-grey, that some people (@bob, e.g.) want to portray can be enticing and that it can help establish your personal or corporate brand.
Writing is sitting in judgement over one's self, according to Ibsen. Certainly, there is the temptation to broadcast thoughts, participate in forums and tell people they are wrong when you think they are, but somewhere in my classical past, I think Horace once wrote, and I paraphrase: shove it in the desk drawer, and sleep on it: maybe for a year or more.
best, ngp

Of course it is a bad idea. it is proof of what your mother used to admonish; "don't argue with a fool. people may not be able to tell the difference."

As usual, it depends. If there is a genuine point of understanding or education for the unseen hordes, a measured clarification might be useful.

Generally, though, it's terribly risky. Different readers/observers can mis-interpret, and in opposite directions. It's too easy for an antagonist, particularly one of low wattage, to read things that aren't there, to draw inferences that aren't intended, and to escalate and protract the debate.

In summary, respond seldom, and never more than once, to a point of disagreement. Offline, and in person, are superior approaches. They offer no surefire resolutions, but are invisible to electronic communities.

Keep in mind that the net is much like a car, it insulates you from others and in many people that frees them from inhibitibg frustration based comments and outright anger. Instead of road rage-net rage.

An arguement or as stated before, a seemingly rational debate, can result in the release of strong, negative emotions. Unless you have a previous understanding that 'debate' is appropriate, it is better to debate in person.

Debates are public so a logical, factual, and respectful debate is perfectly fine for the Internet. Even passion and passionate responses can be expressed in positive and constructive ways. However, arguments are personal and need to moved to an personal mode of communication. Public arguments can easily turn in to electronic mob-action (complete with cyber pitchforks and virtual torches) or turns into a comical point-counterpoint (e.g. Jane you ignorant ****) with one party trying to out do the other. Just look to the Drudge Report or other on-line discussions for examples.

To argue over the internet is never a good idea, but to be ‘true to yourself’ and defend your views with passion is always good, but there is a fine line!

Arguing on the Internet, while often tempting, is typically an incredible waste of time and energy. It yield no net benefit to the participants nor the readers.

I distinguish this from a reasoned exchange of viewpoints, inviting comment, or other forms of public discourse. The purpose of these is to learn from others and to make one's own experience and intellect available to an audience. It is essentially a positive-sum game, where the investment of effort is beneficial.

The Internet is a fine place for honest debate but a terrible place for argument and deception for the same reason: it is transparent.

Current example from a certain LinkedIn group: a man, known amongst experienced group members as “The Offender-in-Chief,” posts come-on questions that snooker unknowing members to answer, whereupon the OIC personally attacks and berates respondents whose opinions differ from his own.

If his behavior is willful and deliberate, then his moniker is justly deserved. If he is clueless about the damage that argumentation and rudeness are doing to his reputation and his business, well …

In general, I never argue unless my testosterone is up e.g. at sporting events. But it is counterproductive to argue in business environments. Arguing in business environments is the arena for lawyers.

I agree with Rebecca's answer and put a response there. Enough said. (:)

President Lincoln's take was that "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Each paradigm arguing for it's rightness! To ego's fighting to validate themselves and the point would be?

Why?

Let's look for where we agree first and then find ways to minimize our differences.

Be careful, be very careful. This is because there are no rules and anything you write will be used for purposes you never thought of.

I think Tom is absolutely right but in more ways than previously expected. The new digital generation will find applications the rest of us cannot even imagine. For example, can you imagine a future in which a person's resume is developed from their online presence by some type of web spider as opposed to the person themselves putting their resume together according to their specific goals. I don't know that that will happen, but that's the point we cannot imagine what things will be like and therefore we should tread cautiously.

Very!
Take it elsewhere like the good old telephone. If it has to stay on-line then use Skype or the like.

I would say email but arguments need to be resolved personally and vocal contact is always best!

"If you do fall out with someone, ring them a year later and take them out to dinner. Befriend your enemies." ~ Richard Branson 'Business Stripped Bare'

Absolutely and actually, I am NOT trying to change the mind of the person I am responding to, but offering another point of consideration to the readers of that post. I never respond further, except to clarify a misunderstanding that may have occured becuase of what I said.

Yes.
The internet is too permanent and visible a medium for true arguments to be conducted upon it.

Debate yes
Contructive and honest feedback yes
Passionate discussion yes

In reviewing the previous posts; and, oddly enough I can agree with them all. Here is my two cents, it depends on the internet medium being used (how public do you want it), your writing ability, your maturity, the maturity of the other person, your subject, and if it is the best way to air the differences.

An example is the previous comments to your question; if the question became a well managed argument then it could be instructional. In fact, a purposeful argument where two or more people with different views are engaging in a debate to educate a following can be a very profitable experience.

Taking any argument public, in my view, reflects negatively upon all parties actively arguing. I am not opposed to the passionate discussions, especially if they are grounded in fact, or require an answer by the other party, however, dropping to the level of "The Jerry Springer Show " type of guests, is not a good reflection of us as civilized human beings. ...Worthwhile entertainment? Maybe, but, I'll let you, the reader, decide.

What is there to learn from an argument? What do we teach our youth from these arguments? What do we adults learn from these arguments? Arguments on the net may appear to exercise our rights to free press, but, permanently taking an argument public, again, in my opinion, degrades personal character.

Maybe that is why I am so frustrated with our current politicians. I feel there are more resources focused on arguing (and I do not mean providing an educational debate with facts) than accomplishing anything worthwhile.

A proper debate to understand different point of views is definitely acceptable. However, there have been too many cases of netizens ending up 'flaming' each other. Good self control is a must have, especially when it is hard for other users to track you. Abusing of the anonymity that the internet provides degrades a civilized person.

Trying to conduct a debate online may not be effective, when there are personal emotions involved. It is harder to protray the emotions needed at that point of time to the other party, or to focus on the other party's emotions at the point of posting. The lack of body language presence can affect the way a topic is being brought across.

Also the type of websites can proved to be a factor. If the website is against a particular object, majority of the readers will be against, and when a small group or individual tries to make his point there, it may be flooded by the other posts, and lack the visibility.

Overall, it depends on how we use the internet or what we want to convey and where.

What a mealy-mouth question!

My brand is confrontational to get people to change so when I've had posters calling me things and describing me as an "idiot" I take that and go right back at them. Yes, it's not for everyone but I seem to get a lot of comments - good and bad -on blogs. You want to be noticed, take hard lines not grey, it makes your brand stand out.

And be brief for gosh sakes!

Rarely is an on-line argument going to get anywhere. Unless there is some exception that entering the argument will move you closer to your goals, I can't see how it is a good use of time.

It depends on if your right or not ;)

Seems like we covered the whole gambit of what arguing can be in just discussing whether or not it is appropriate.

Ranging from respectful differences to rhetoric designed to "bait" other people into a response. This leaves me only one question:

Did anyone's mind get changed even a little bit regarding the topic as a result of the debate?

On the positive side of having discussions of disagreement with respect can help others gain a different perspective. If we all agreed, the world would be pretty boring place.

What is missing is this old behavior called civility. However, it can be changed by each one of us when we take much of the advice that has already been shared. Personally, I use Socrates 3 Filters.

Before debating...
1. First decide which comments could be good to address and which ones are better to be left alone.
2. Decide how and where that comment can be best addressed.

Then...
3. Agree with all above saying that educational debates are fine as long as they are professional, factual and respectful.
4. Focus on the subject but don't attack the person. It's ok to have differing opinions but the debate should stay focused on presenting your points and not on personal attacks.

what a beautiful, mindful adage. well done, Mom!