When a squabble gets continually longer with each post, that means that the people involved aren't interested in resolving the issue, or in learning any lessons, or in growing, or whatever. The only exception to the rule is when a single piece of information, for instance a related experience, or a quote from a reputable source, drives your response to be longer than the original question asked.

So what are people interested in accomplishing, by posting increasingly longer arguments?

mdk said
When a squabble gets continually longer with each post, that means that the people involved aren't interested in resolving the issue, or in learning any lessons, or in growing, or whatever. The only exception to the rule is when a single piece of information, for instance a related experience, or a quote from a reputable source, drives your response to be longer than the original question asked.

So what are people interested in accomplishing, by posting increasingly longer arguments?

For me. Elucidating certain points and view points to the extent that will be coherent to all participating parties.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
For me. Elucidating certain points and view points to the extent that will be coherent to all participating parties.

Shouldn't that take, like, one post?

mdk said
Shouldn't that take, like, one post?

Dear sweet innocent, naive mdk. Hell no.

Obligatory and relevant:


https://xkcd.com/386/

Pretty much, it's an ego thing. People get a "rush" about proving somebody wrong and "winning" a fight. It's usually less about learning about something or trying to determine what's right and more about trying to prove somebody wrong so you can look smart.

There's a reason I don't really feel like jumping into massive, multi-quoted passive aggressive to slanderous debates/arguments/e-peen stroking fests for the most part. Whereas I mainly like to talk about things, get educated about something I want to know more about, or put in my two bits about something that I am certain is factually correct when I see something that's wrong (like, actual facts, not something subjective like say if God exists, the ethics of suicide or anything like that). Of course, I like anyone get sucked into things from time to time, but I don't exactly go seeking it out or deriving some kind of pleasure with arguing over something that's almost certain to not reach a mutually respective conclusion where both parties feel satisfied with the discourse. Most of the threads you see in Off-Topic that are pages upon pages and hundreds of posts usually go completely off the original topic as somebody's trying to illustrate an idea to prove their own position, and then it escalates when somebody else counters the tangent with something else and blah blah blah. In short, it's less about learning and more about "winning".

If you can ever call being a part of an internet slap fight that.

I'm not sure if growing length in posts is directly correlative to people not being willing to change their own thinking, so much as many of us who debate here seem steeped in what we are used to from the get go. Some of the longer posts are definitely just brick walls illustrating why that person will never change, with pride, usually. Others though are often people bringing up scenarios or tearing apart arguments. Dissecting what a person is saying is important to properly discern where they're coming from and, in a way their explanations may not do intentionally, understanding how/why they think in this way. I'll definitely say a couple monster posts will slow down or even kill any OT thread, but that may not be all that bad.

I think what's more notable are the reoccurring participants in these conversations who prefer to state 'how the world is' over validating other perspectives. Yes, this is the internet, where people argue without real repercussion. But it's also a small forum where trends are very obvious. Further, it's also an extension of a vast information space where it's plain to see just how many ways of thinking are not just valid, but equally true. To be honest, I deeply enjoy the political and social conversations. I rue every instance where someone comes in, unyielding to the notion that their narrow vision of the world may not be all their is. Life is simply far too complex for any one person to grasp. I enjoy the conversations with those down to give and take, really consider what's said, and able to identify their own biases while making the tough arguments too. Not so much a dialogue when the other is just trying to preach a view that leaves no room for others. I'd say this portion of the longer posts are probably the most volatile and worst for the health of a good OT thread. When the people not interested in actually growing put that much down, it's usually just some attempt to not dissect, but belittle the other perspectives shown to that point. That's not a dialogue.

So yeah, I wouldn't agree that length is equivalent to stubbornness. Communication is tough and our population lies over a vast socio-economic range. Assuming that you, MDK, could say something built up from all your life experiences and that it would make complete sense to me, with very different experiences, just isn't going to happen in one easy go. It takes a few rewordings, some examples, and in some cases just an extended period of effort to really understand where a person is coming from. Here we just have text. We don't get that body language of the empathetic sense that someone feels very strongly about a thing. I can see why it may take more text for some then. That shouldn't be a problem if they're trying to be understood or to understand.

mdk said
When a squabble gets continually longer with each post, that means that the people involved aren't interested in resolving the issue, or in learning any lessons, or in growing, or whatever. The only exception to the rule is when a single piece of information, for instance a related experience, or a quote from a reputable source, drives your response to be longer than the original question asked.

So what are people interested in accomplishing, by posting increasingly longer arguments?

I don't think this is the case.

Some people just naturally take longer to explain their point than others.
Sometimes the original statement/question sparks a complex topic, so you need to expand it and bring in more detail/info to truly address it.

Like when I debate I'm going to go in with a stance/opinion, that's true. Everyone enters such conversations with certain beliefs they hold to be correct, but that doesn't mean your not open to learning new things, or are open to change. It's just that you need see the proof to be convinced, and you aren't just going to change your mind because people disagree with you.

Most of the times I see people say stuff like "They talk a long time/make long posts. They don't care about learning stuff" it's usually a case of the people making that claim are the kinds of people who personally don't care for long debates, preffering for the duration to be short and/or just a small amount of words per post. It's not a style of debate/conversation they're used to so it takes them back and they read others doing at as wanting to be right or dominant.

When in truth, just as humans vary in most areas we also vary in how we communicate, how we learn etc. This is just one of those cases where some people communicate better in longer debates than others.

Dervish said
Pretty much, it's an ego thing. People get a "rush" about proving somebody wrong and "winning" a fight. It's usually less about learning about something or trying to determine what's right and more about trying to prove somebody wrong so you can look smart. There's a reason I don't really feel like jumping into massive, multi-quoted passive aggressive to slanderous debates/arguments/e-peen stroking fests for the most part. Whereas I mainly like to talk about things, get educated about something I want to know more about, or put in my two bits about something that I am certain is factually correct when I see something that's wrong (like, actual facts, not something subjective like say if God exists, the ethics of suicide or anything like that). Of course, I like anyone get sucked into things from time to time, but I don't exactly go seeking it out or deriving some kind of pleasure with arguing over something that's almost certain to not reach a mutually respective conclusion where both parties feel satisfied with the discourse. Most of the threads you see in Off-Topic that are pages upon pages and hundreds of posts usually go completely off the original topic as somebody's trying to illustrate an idea to prove their own position, and then it escalates when somebody else counters the tangent with something else and blah blah blah. In short, it's less about learning and more about "winning".If you can ever call being a part of an internet slap fight that.

This. For me, there's a difference between arguing and debating/discussing. Arguing is about proving your point, about winning. Debate and discussion is about presenting your view in contrast to someone else's, and seeking to understand their view, possibly allowing it to change your own. It's about seeking a common truth and mutual understanding - yes, you're trying to progeny your point, but for the sake of their understanding and yours, not just "to win". I feel like the conversations I had with you the other day are a good example, mdk - we realised we disagreed, or were misinterpreting one another, and called it quits, having found the others' perspective interesting, if not the same as our own. I'd never quite thought about the cultural unity of the US that way until you mentioned it - I'd always thought of it as very decentralised and as varying from state to state.

I usually do it to try and cover as many counter-points as possible, though typically, I'm responding to elongated responses with my own.

The only time I might start with a very long response is if I have a lot to say about something or have to PC my way around a topic.

For most people, it's because they can't stand the idea that someone else doesn't think they're right.

Halo said
This. For me, there's a difference between arguing and debating/discussing. Arguing is about proving your point, about winning. Debate and discussion is about presenting your view in contrast to someone else's, and seeking to understand their view, possibly allowing it to change your own. It's about seeking a common truth and mutual understanding - yes, you're trying to progeny your point, but for the sake of their understanding and yours, not just "to win". I feel like the conversations I had with you the other day are a good example, mdk - we realised we disagreed, or were misinterpreting one another, and called it quits, having found the others' perspective interesting, if not the same as our own. I'd never quite thought about the cultural unity of the US that way until you mentioned it - I'd always thought of it as very decentralised and as varying from state to state.

Then why do you always want me to be wrong? Or do you just want to argue all the time?

RusalkaAKAJessicaRabbit said
For most people, it's because they can't stand the idea that someone else doesn't think they're right.

Don't forget that they have to say it in their own words. Which is why you said the exact same thing that I did, but you felt the need to post anyway. Hence, we have another post without any real contribution to the topic at hand, which happens all the time in these kinds of arguments.

To be honest, I didn't really read any of the other posts. xD

Except the first one, I suppose.

RusalkaAKAJessicaRabbit said
To be honest, I didn't really read any of the other posts. xD

Exhibit B. ;)

Because I happen to enjoy the cut and thrust of reasonable, reasoned debate/argument/whatever you want to call it. I don't care if I convince the other person, I care if I make a good showing in support of my proposition - its also good practice for meaningful debates/arguments/etc in the real world, rather than these ones we have here online.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Then why do you always want me to be wrong? Or do you just want to argue all the time?

Or perhaps Halo just hasn't ran into a case of agreeing with you yet?
So whenever you two do debate Halo is debating against you?

Captain Jordan said
Don't forget that they have to say it in their own words. Which is why you said the exact same thing that I did, but you felt the need to post anyway. Hence, we have another post without any real contribution to the topic at hand, which happens all the time in these kinds of arguments.

People are entitled to post their own opinion, even if others have stated it.
If anything it helps highlight it's not just one person with said mindset but multiple people.

Magic Magnum said
People are entitled to post their own opinion, even if others have stated it.If anything it helps highlight it's not just one person with said mindset but multiple people.

Exactly. While having the most people on your side may not be proof that you are 'right', it is helpful to success in an argument, and multiple people arguing the same position can in fact establish their collective proposition better, especially if they are aware of each other and work together explicitly or implicitly.