Red vs. Blue

By Leone July 27, 2008 2 Comments

...and I don't mean the popular web-series.

Let's look at some definitions, shall we?
Devil's Advocate from wikipedia:
"In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure."
Devil's Advocate from dictionary.com:
"One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position."

Discussion from dictionary.com:
"An act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate."

Debate from dictionary.com:

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration.
   
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

Finally:
Troll from urban dictionary:
"One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. "

---

Some will content that simply by marking certain words I am already myself doing what I intend to oppose, so take this as you will.

At a glance, an informal assumption between "Devil's Advocate" and "Troll" would lead many to think that a Troll is essentially the internet's version of a Devil's Advocate. Is this really the case? Are you a Troll for always raising the opposite view? No. I did not mark this part of the Troll definition, but those who continue to read will notice that it says "...without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers." That is the difference between a Debater and a Troll. If you intend to debate, you must be willing to admit defeat, or at least take acknowledge the opposing view point. To fight fervently for your opinion without ever giving someone else's idea a chance is to be a troll. You don't have to call someone a fanboy; you don't have to overtly attack anyone; all you have to do is fail to give it up.

And failure is key. To not give up and to fail to give up are two entirely different things. Perhaps you still see strength in your argument, or you have found a flaw in your opponent's. Either way, what you are doing is debating, you have not given up because there is still something to contend. If you fail to give up, you are beating the proverbial horse with a large hammer; you are fighting a battle that has ended. And more often than not, you are the fool in the end. No matter how good your argument is in the beginning, all it takes is that one moment where you fail to understand your situation, where you stop debating and start antagonizing and you have become the fool, marked by your peers as something else.

There are very key statements that antagonize, whether intentional or otherwise, and they vary slightly with each and every person. It is only natural to defense yourself when you feel threatened, and this is all too easy to set up over the internet. When are you a debater? When are you the antagonist? The answers are something that you have to learn, not something someone can hand you on a slip of paper. Be aware of how others react to your statements, don't just blindly charge ahead. You need to be able to read your opponent; you are not trying to beat them down; you are not trying to trap them and corner them; you are trying to convince them that your viewpoint, that your argument, is better.

"Discussion" and "Debate" both have their places on the internet, and indeed, GiantBomb would be a great place for debating in these early stages. Many valid points have already been brought up within the confines of what this site is, such as: Is this really a gaming concept? Did so-and-so really come up with this first? Has this really affected gaming at all? Is it unique to gaming?

Or the more prevalent examples, to which there is an entire forum devoted to: What constitutes a release versus a new game? Is there a measurable difference in content that qualifies one or the other? Or is it simply being put in a new box, under a different name?

But is it a good place for debating? Only if people know how to conduct themselves.

This blog isn't to offer opinions on any of those, nor am I one to judge. Instead, this blog is to talk about how you should conduct yourself in a discussion or a debate. It is a fine line we all walk, especially online where we lack the minute intonations and expressions that give our full voice to a statement. Without a doubt, many people can engage in a debate online but the fact remains: you must know when to call it quits; you must know when to say "you're right" or "good point"; you need to know when you have gone from debating to trolling. Even those with the purest of intentions can crawl under that infamous bridge and become that thing which we all loathe.

Shit, I could be trolling all your asses right now, and you haven't even realized it yet. That is the double-edged nature of the internet, ladies and gentlemen. Take it as you will; tread lightly when you wish to back up your statements. And remember: the next time you want to comment on whether "sound" is a key concept of gaming or if that is totally absurd garbage, take a moment to consider everyone else, what they're saying, and most importantly, how they are reacting to you.

2 Comments