The Art of Discussion
The internet is a special place. It's a place where every single topic, every minuscule niche and every weird hobby has a shrine of devotees talking about what they think is important. It's a place where people can communicate, without hesitation, without any immediate social boundaries. It's also a place where everyone can enter a conversation anonymously.
This detachment of our real world lives is often cited as a negative, as it makes the internet a cold, vile and uninviting space at times. When discussions get going, things heat up pretty fast and people flock to these topics only to add more oil to an already raging fire. Concepts like trolling and flaming emerged in the wake of early yet fiery online discussions.
There's an old image that sums up most people's feelings quite well: nothing can be gained from discussing things on the web. And while, to a certain degree, they have a point, I'm about to tell you why they are wrong.
First and foremost, it's about them
Two people with different opinions about a subject, that's all you need to get a discussion started. These two people will then go on to try and explain their opinions while providing counter-arguments for what the other party is stating.
Convincing the other party they are wrong is often seen as the essence of a discussion. While there's definitely room for that in fact-based discussions, most arguments are centred around personal beliefs and/or personal taste, topics where nobody is actually right or wrong.
That doesn't mean these types of discussions are futile though. Instead of seeing an argument as one party trying to convince the other party, it is way more useful to look it as a unique opportunity to get a glimpse into the mind of another person. It's a chance to discover how other people look at the world, how they are moved by things that are completely alien to yourself. At the same time, your end of the discussion should be focused on how to explain your thoughts and feelings. Not in a way that is meant to convince the other party, but in a way that allows other people to understand why you like the things you like and think the things you think.
It's a sport
Let's be honest though, most discussions don't play out that way, neither online nor in real life. Instead they end up with two parties attempting to invalidate each other's opinions and experiences, until one party finally concedes.
The dirty little secret of discussions is that to many people, the art of discussing is actually little more than a sport. It's not about sharing experiences or about getting to know the other person, it's about winning. About a false sense of superiority that seemingly validates your own beliefs. Trumping the other party means leaving the discussion victorious, even though deep down inside people know they've gained absolutely nothing at all. Still, that quick shot of adrenaline is enough for most people to behave they way they do.
People who are good at discussing can even argue a position that's not their own. They can take whatever stance, whatever opinion and provide credible arguments for it. It's an extremely useful trait to master, but it's a skill that can only be acquired by testing out the waters without other parties being aware of what you're doing. It's not the kind of thing that's going to earn you good friend points.
Tactics
After a while, you start to see patterns in the way discussions evolve. You find tactics that people apply to "win" a discussion even though both opinions are equally valid. Through the years I've encountered quite a few of these, so I've compiled a little shortlist that might help you save face when you feel you're being unfairly outwitted by someone.
a. Grammar skills
It's hardly elegant and it has little or nothing to do with the actual discussion, but people will call out your grammatical mistakes and spelling errors. The only point here is to make you feel inferior, which would somehow equate to having an inferior opinion. It's nonsense of course, but it is known to work.
b. Fluffy eloquence
Wordplay and (semi)poetry are your enemy. Arguments should be clear and simple to understand, not clouded by fancy words or poetic associations. Whenever you spot these, chances are someone is trying to lose you in a web of wordplay rather than communicate something meaningful.
c. Semantics
People will read your opinions with a certain bias, so whatever way you express yourself, keep in mind that they might read something else in it. Once you feel that you're not talking about the same thing, try to defuse that part of the discussion as quickly as possible, or before you know it you're quarrelling about semantics and nobody's a winner in those types of discussions.
d. Leave analogies alone
Analogies are tricky and rarely work out. Unless you are talking to someone who's actually willing to understand what you are saying, analogies will leave you stranded. An analogy is by definition different from the thing you're trying to describe, so the other party will just highlight the difference and claim victory. It's a dead end street.
e. Simplifying things
When you present an argument people might try to rephrase it or cherry-pick certain parts of your argument. Keep in mind that simplifying a discussion often means losing out on context and subtleties, which may put your argument in a different light altogether. Stick to what you want to say and don't let yourself be sidetracked. Chances are you're being set up anyway.
f. Beware of people backing you up
An online discussion rarely happens between just two people. There will often be others backing up your statements. While this sounds fun and empowering, the way they voice their opinions will automatically reflect on yours. Suddenly you're Team X and you're accountable for everything your team mates say. It's safest to distance yourself from whoever is joining in, relying solemnly on your own statements.
g. The power of many
Personal taste is just that, but when discussing taste people will try and find comfort in the opinions of like-minded people. They will cite opinions of experts in the field which are supposed to strengthen their own arguments. Remind yourself that taste is a personal thing and that even experts are subject to personal taste. When personal taste is involved, there is no right answer.
h. It's all a joke
Discussions can be fun and light-hearted, but when someone back-pedals claiming arguments he brought up where just for laughs (usually accompanied by a "don't be so serious") you're in dangerous territory. Jokes win over people, no matter of the nonsense they were talking about just 2 minutes ago.
i .Profiling
In many cases, when discussions get really going people will tell you to chill. When you're cursing or shouting (all-caps) that's probably a fair assessment, but when you're just explaining things rationally it's often a way to label you as a hot-head, someone who is riled up instead of a conscious, rational person.
The bottom line
A seasoned partaker in discussions will have no trouble making you feel inferior unless you're able to pinpoint the techniques he's using to do so. The list above is far from conclusive and someone versed in the art of discussion will have way more subtle approaches to make you feel like you're wrong, even though at some level you realize there is no factual ground to feel that way.
Whatever you do, don't buy into it. Unless you have truly missed the point or misunderstood a factual argument, there is no right or wrong when it comes to opinions. There is no way your opinion is more valuable or more correct than any other. The value of holding a discussion lies in finding out about the way others experience the world around us, if the other party isn't interested in that he's just looking for self-gratification. Either you play along and make it a conscious battle, or you walk away and leave him straining for attention.