Why Is the General Standard of Debate on the Internet So Poor?

Debates on the internet often fall short of the rigorous standards of critical thinking and logical reasoning that one might expect. This is not unique to the internet; unmoderated debates on any platform suffer from similar issues. The problem arises from the inherent nature of the medium and the human impulse to win at all costs.

Understanding the Medium: Open-Ended Language

Debate is essentially a game in which participants use language to argue their points. The open-ended nature of the internet lends itself to this medium, making it a fertile ground for cheating and misinterpretation. This is because language, especially in a fast-paced online forum, is subject to a wide range of interpretations. In chess, a game with clear and rigid rules, it's much harder to cheat. In football, where the rules are loose but referees are present to enforce them, cheating still happens but is generally easier to identify and penalize.

The Intersection of Winning Impulse and Game Mechanics

Games involve forces that often conflict with one another. One of these forces is the mechanics of the game itself, which set boundaries and rules that players must follow. The other force is the human desire to win. In most games, this desire is part of the mechanics, such as in basketball where players aim to score more points than the opposing team. However, when the mechanics are less clear or more flexible, the tendency to cheat can exacerbate.

Debate: A Magnitude More Complex Game

Debate is significantly more complex than a game like football. The medium is language, which can be highly nuanced and open to interpretation. Unlike chess, where the rules are clear and unambiguous, debate lacks an external referee to enforce these rules. In informal debate, participants often believe they have agreed on ground rules, but in reality, they may not. This leads to a situation where the original intent of playing fair is easily discarded in the face of the strong desire to win.

The Human Factor in Debate

Participants in debate often enter the conversation with a mix of motives. Some may have nefarious plans to troll, dominate, or spread propaganda, while others genuinely seek the truth. However, the strong desire to win can often dominate these initial intentions. People may start debates with the best of intentions but find themselves under the deadly influence of the need to win and the fear of losing.

The Flawed Belief in Rational Debate

There is a widespread but flawed belief that two rational individuals can engage in a fair debate without any issues. This belief is contradicted by decades of research in psychology, neuroscience, and economics. This false confidence can lead people to under-study the rules of debate and rely on their assumptions of rationality, setting them up for failure. The hope for intellectual rigor in such an unstructured and unrefereed environment is akin to hoping for a fair game of football without referees.

Conclusion

The poor quality of online debate is a natural outcome of the medium's flexibility and the human drive to win. To improve the standard of debate, we must be aware of these challenges and try to establish clear ground rules and external enforcement mechanisms. Whether the goal is to seek truth or win an argument, understanding these dynamics is crucial.