Online Argumentation
Online Argumentation, And the Rules That Should Govern It
It seems like everything in today’s society is “up for
debate”, as nothing is, as they say, set in stone. This is a topic that has far-reaching
effects and involves all members of our modern society. Just when it seems as
if an issue is free of any “grey” areas and thusly free from a debate of its
legitimacy, another round of dispute arises sending our fellow members into a frenzied
round of renewed arguments. One only needs to reference Roe V. Wade to
exemplify this concept, as it was so recently overturned by the U.S. Supreme
Court. Thusly, sparking novel rounds of argumentation over an issue supposedly
resolved years ago.
This is a lone example in a sea of such matters, from which these heated and emotional arguments can arise. Another such example of this controversy is the heated debate covering the issue of gun rights and the advocacy of such rights. This is not the forum to discuss the validity of such matters, however, we can start to dissect this process and define the steps in this through these means.
As of Oregon’s last election, Ballot Measure 114 has been
approved by the state’s voters by the slimmest of margins. It has since been
subjected to numerous attacks by city and county officials and consumers alike.
There is a multitude of conflicting statements between community members and
state officials. One such discrepancy is between the official comments of the
Oregon State Police and their counterparts in the Oregon State Sheriffs’
Association. These disputes are the proverbial “tip of the iceberg”, so to
speak, of this issue. One can find this subject being countered back and forth
on a variety of digital formats, including a Reddit “mega-thread” (Oregon Measure 114), where the validity of this measure is argued from differing sides
of this equation. As noted earlier, this is not a question of this argument’s
soundness nor its reasonability, it is just an example of the ongoing
disputation of such issues on a digital platform.
This is a public policy affair that concerns a staggering
number of Oregon’s populace, as it hinges upon the infringement of
constitutional rights, and the safety/security of its communities. Insofar as I
can discern, it is a topic that concerns all residents of our great state of
Oregon. In this electronic symposium, there are many skewed and slanted views
provided through the biased lens of its reporters. Which is one but many issues
I have with this online argument. The same can be proposed for any argument, opinions
can be intertwined with facts and misrepresented to sway public opinion one way
or the other. Additionally, to each counterpoint there is an emotional barrage
of dissent, that leads to nothing more than a fervent exchange of words between
parties, equating to nothing more than an illogical interchange of ideals.
Moreover, there is no understanding or use of the Principle of Charity, which
states, regardless of a speaker’s position/side of the debate, one must uphold the
other’s premises in the most rational and convincing way, ensuring that both sides
have an appreciation for one another’s views. This is a technique touted by
philosophical circles for its efficacy in providing a sense of understanding
between conflicting views and thereby providing a mediation technique in such charged
themes.
From this exemplification, we can draft a declaration for “Five
Rules” that should be upheld by participants in such matters:
 |
| Image courtesy of nishantsaxena.in, |
Firstly, preparation is the first endeavor of anyone wishing
to participate in unmediated electronic forums of debate. “Know your topic” and
your stance. Do some research into credible sources that can provide a background
to whatever matter you are preparing to debate, in addition to the facts “of
the case”.
Secondly, present your “case” in an ethical way that upholds
your credibility. Sinking into a heated exchange of views (emotionally tense)
will only act to lessen one’s credibility in such affairs, and essentially lose
its appeal to the greater audience in general. The majority of individuals do
not want to merely sit on the sidelines and watch (read) a few interchanges between
such perpetrators.
Thirdly, employ effective “active listening” skills. This
technique will ensure that both sides are effectively communicating with each
other and that there is a level of mutual comprehension between the interested
parties. Utilizing this as a strategy in an argument, we are opening a “channel”
of mutual communication, and not asserting our premise through a “one way”
method.
Fourthly, make use of the Principle of Charity. This in
no way implicates one to agree to another’s terms or premise, it is only a
method for seeking to legitimize their point of view by ingesting it in its
best light. We are not passing a judgment of right or wrong in their proposition
but are looking at it in its best possible and reasonable way. Human beings see
and perceive things differently, we should not act to discount this fact, but
seek to understand each other’s side of things in addition to our own.
Finally, know when to “walk away”. This by no means implies merely
quitting or giving up on our premise, but there is a time when one must exclude
themselves from an argument as it has become unconstructive. This aligns with
an age-old adage that states, “there is no point in beating a dead horse”.
Sometimes, this is exactly what we unintentionally partake in when we constantly
justify or rationalize our viewpoints on matters of debate.
Sources Cited
AutoModerator. (R/Oregon). Posted 12th November
2022. Oregon Measure 114 Megathread. Reddit.com
/Oregon
Measure 114 Megathread : oregon (reddit.com)
Lawson, D. (Accessed 27th November 2022). FAQ:
What Is. Principle Of Charity? David H. Lawson Foundation/Tax-Exempt
Organization And Public Charity. Davidhlawsonfoundation.org
Roe v. Wade.
(n.d.). In The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/Roe%20v.%20Wade.
Comments
Post a Comment