Online Arguments

    With the task of analyzing an online argument, I took to Twitter, knowing that my search would not be long. I use the app frequently, as I have discussed in previous posts, and see arguments daily. Most of these arguments follow the same pattern: they are horrible and accomplish absolutely nothing besides ruining a handful of people's moods. The example I chose to analyze for this post only took me a few minutes to find and reflects the type of things I am used to seeing. I usually find them through a quote retweet, where someone essentially posts on top of the original post with their disagreement for the original. A quote retweet is similar to a reply, but it typically gains more attention, which I think is a large motivating factor for these types of arguments. 

Here is one thread from the post along with a link to the original.

    I chose this post because, as I stated earlier, I see these types of arguments frequently, and I think they represent the perfect example of how not to argue. The argument begins with a baseless and nonsensical claim. Often these types of posts are made just to farm engagement (which can actually make money). However, since the original poster has replied to many of the top comments and does not even have premium, which I believe is required to make money on Twitter, this post likely reflects their actual opinion. 

Most online arguments escalate beyond recovery due to emotional responses (image from CartoonStock)

    The first big issue I have with this argument is that the original claim has no supporting material. The original poster gives no reasons as to why they hold their outlandish belief that lunchboxes are gender specific. The very first reply seen in the image above also contains multiple issues. They give a rebuttal with a generalized statistic which also contains no evidence. If you want to use statistics to prove someone wrong, it must be from a credible source. The replier then follows up their retort with an insult directed towards the original poster, guaranteeing that the argument will not be civil. The following replies show that the argument has shifted from the original topic, indicating that it is now derailed.

    There are some basic rules that you can follow when arguing online to prevent arguments from derailing and becoming uncivil. These are partially inspired by the Toulmin method. To learn more about this, check out my previous post. The basic rules are listed here:

1. Any claims made should be supported by evidence from credible sources.
2. Before responding to someone, take some time to analyze their point of view instead of replying instantly.
3. Make your response based on logic and evidence instead of emotion. If you are emotional (usually angry), take some time to become level headed before responding.
4. Avoid use of insults and expletives. They contribute nothing to the argument and are likely to derail it.
5. Stay focused on the topic of the argument. Do not bring up unnecessary subjects and do not look through the posts of the person you are debating in an effort to use something against them, as this is usually done out of hostility Show whoever you are debating respect.

    These tips aim to keep arguments focused and civil. Using trustworthy sources is the best way to make a convincing argument that will have a chance at swaying your opponent. The problem with most online arguments is that people fail to slow down and look at it from a more logical standpoint. People feel that if they do not reply instantly, then they have lost the argument. But arguing in this fashion, quickly and fueled by emotion, is not true argumentation; it is just senseless fighting for the sake of pride. As one last bonus tip, if an argument online becomes too heated or passionate, try taking it to direct messages, which is a feature most social media sites have. Without an audience, such as the entire internet, watching your argument, it can be easier to be civil since people will be more likely to admit they are wrong without the feeling of embarrassment. This is discussed more in this article by Amanda Baughan.

Toulmin Method

    The Toulmin method, developed by Stephen Toulmin, is a form of argumentation that breaks the process of creating an effective argument into individual components that work together in strengthening an argument. These components include the claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. The most important parts are the claim, grounds, and warrant (I learned it as claim, data, warrant in high school; maybe that will sound familiar to some). The claim represents the stance on an argument that you are making and trying to convince others to agree with. The grounds are the evidence, or the "data", that support your argument. Without it, people have no reason to believe your claim. The warrant explains how your grounds support your claim. With this method, argumentation can be thought of the same way as many other types of writing; you start with a topic, provide an example, and explain how the example connects to your topic. Backing can be added to support your warrant and the qualifier eludes to other stances on the argument, which are addressed in the rebuttal. Acknowledging other possible stances will increase your credibility, making it more likely that listeners and readers will accept your argument. Understanding other sides of an argument is also crucial to having civil discussion on a topic that people have different stances on. 

Stephen Toulmin from The Guardian

    Much discussion online surrounding divisive topics such as politics have devolved to chaos. Arguments often lack structure or evidence that support them. People will make claims without providing any reason to believe them. In my experience, people frequently lack any grounds or rebuttal when arguing online. Especially around election day, the amount of statements I see on social media that fail to provide any sort of grounds is astonishing. Before people make a post online making some sort of claim, they should be doing actual research to see if they are correct. They may even change their mind in the process after becoming better informed. If anyone bothered to include actual grounds for their claims, then it would be easy to create a warrant and thus make a convincing contribution to online discussion. If people included rebuttals in their online arguments and considered other perspectives besides their own could be correct, then discussion of the topic would instantly become more civil. For example, instead of saying you favor a politician because of their view on the economy and everyone else is wrong, you can give examples of what specific policies you like while addressing how other views are valid.

An example of the application of the Toulmin method form Purdue

    Instead of using factual information, online argumentation is mostly fueled on pure emotion. People do not think before they post, and instead speak in a way that only reflects on how they feel at the time. This is perhaps one of the biggest drawbacks of online communication. It is too easy to quickly respond based on emotion without considering who you are talking to or who will see your post. We often forget that we are still speaking to actual people online since we are not seeing them face to face. Most people would never think of saying the things they say online to someone's face. If people were to use the Toulmin method when arguing online, it would force them to slow down and think about what they are about to say. Acquiring evidence to support their claim would replace the emotion they would have otherwise acted on and lead to a more structured argument.

From Reputation Defender

    It may be difficult, however, to directly apply the Toulmin method to online communication due to the sheer amount of information available on the internet. How do we know that information we find is factual? Would we just use sources that confirm our biases instead of considering other sources that could expand out views? Are people able to slow down and overcome their emotions when discussing a passionate topic when online communication is so quick and convenient? Perhaps a method that slows down our way of thinking and discussing is counterintuitive to the flow of the internet. Or perhaps, if we are able to sort through information to find what is credible and are able to critically analyze different points of view, it is possible we can facilitate a more civil flow of discussion online.

Research Podcast

    When looking for a podcast on online communication, I chose to look on Spotify since it is an application I use frequently to listen to music, and I knew it was a popular place for podcasts. I listened to a podcast episode called "How and why we communicate differently online." from a podcast called "Online Communication" by user EthanLovesCats (me too, Ethan). 

Screenshot from Spotify page

    Ethan discussed how we implement emojis, abbreviations, and caps in our online communication. I want to focus on the emoji aspect, as they are a unique form of communication that are still developing to this day. Emojis are also interesting in the sense that we only use them for certain types of communication, typically casual conversation with people we know. We rarely use them in the professional setting. Ethan states that "72% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 are more likely to express emotions with emojis rather than words" (EthanLovesCats, 2023). We use emojis frequently to express emotions, but what role of communication does this fill?

From Oxbridge

    One explanation for our use of emojis can be traced back to the idea of channel-rich contexts and channel-lean contexts. Our textbook describes face-to-face conversations as channel rich because they involve words, facial expressions, gestures, and tone, while texting your friend would be channel lean since it only involves text (Floyd, 2021). With how common text conversations have become in place of face-to-face communication, emojis help make up for the channels of communication we are losing. They can represent facial expressions and can set the tone of a message. For example, we cannot tell the tone of plain text, but if it is sent with a laughing emoji, we know it was a joke. In summary, emojis have become a common practice of online communication because they supplement the human factor we would otherwise be missing. 

Since I mentioned my love for cats, I figured it was only fair to include a picture of mine :) (her name is Rose)

The Battle for Public Opinion

    The most obvious effect that social media has on public opinion is increased speed, both in the rate that people receive information to inform their opinions as well as in the rate that people share their opinions to the public. It has never been easier to share opinions to large audiences, so what is the result?

From Kendall Campbell

    First off, being online has provided people a sense of anonymity that they did not have before. Because of this, people are more likely to say things they would not otherwise. They will likely put less thought into their words before they say them as well. As a result, more and more extreme opinions surface on the internet. People will start to see people sharing opinions that they themselves share, but previously refrained from expressing openly. Now that they see this opinion publicly more often, they feel comfortable publicly expressing this opinion themselves. This leads to radicalization in opinions, and is especially noticeable in politics. 

    Due to the radicalization of opinions these days, it is rare to see a civil discussion about politics. Politics feels more like a war that one party will win over the other rather than a way for the people of a nation to decide the best form of government. Politicians are forced to follow suit in order to appease their supporters. Any political debate in the last decade clearly showcases this. Before social media, those interested in politics would need to spend more time informing their opinions before they could take a solid stance. Now, most people form their opinions based on whatever they see on their social media feed, whether it is fact or just people posting things simply because they can.

From Boston University

    Once an opinion is formed through social media, it can be incredibly difficult to change it. The algorithms that control our social media feeds are designed to feed us what we want to see based on things we have liked in the past. Therefore, your social media will continue to show you content that reinforces those opinions that you formed and filter out everything else. This further skews your perception in favor of your already established beliefs and opinions. It is almost impossible to see the perspective from both sides because you are only shown one side a majority of the time. When you do see the other side, our first instinct is to oppose it because it has become foreign to us. This can make communication difficult and potentially hostile.

From Outrage

    On the other hand, strong opinions formed online does have the benefit of connecting us to people who share our opinions, making it easier to form relationships online. Social media can also be used for activism. It allows people to use similar tactics to actual rallies and protests, such as catchy phrases and powerful messages, without leaving the comfort of your own home. Examples include the #BLM movement and the #Metoo movement. Through such movements online, people can advocate for their beliefs in a way that cannot be ignored without the threat of violence from rioters, police, or the government. In that sense, social media can be a great platform for peaceful protests. There will still be disagreements and hostile replies, of course, but without the threat of actual injury.

    As one final note, it is too easy to spread misinformation online. It is up to us to exercise caution when reading information before we use it to form our opinions. I also think that companies who run social media sites should put more effort into stopping the spread of misinformation.