There should be an encyclopedia of internet arguments and how they usually play out. Rather than waste time fighting with each other, people could just refer to the encyclopedia entry and save themselves the trouble.

submitted by Ponderer from self.debatealtright

If you've been on the internet for more than a day, you've probably noticed the same arguments regurgitated dozens or hundreds of times. Which religion is the right one? Is capitalism based or cringe? And so on.

Often these arguments play out exactly the same way each time, or with minor variations. They usually bring up the same points and the same facts, but members on each side interpret them differently. At the end of the day, because these positions are based on opinion (or something that is true but can't be easily proven over the internet), nobody ends up winning and both sides leave in a huff.

However, imagine if this process could be streamlined. What if all the basic talking points for the most common arguments were written out along with their rebuttals. Rather than having to make the case for your favorite political or economic system yet again, you could just refer your opponent to this list, where your viewpoints are expressed in perfect clarity. And instead of calling you a retard, they could just point out which rebuttals to your views they happen to have. You can then (rightly) say that their rebuttals are unfalsifiable, agree to disagree, and both go on your merry way.

I'm sure some people would think their views are too unique and special for this, but there's enough boring regularity in the online debate space that a resource like this is sorely needed.

What do you think - would this encyclopedia lead to world peace, or nah? And if so, what topics and arguments would you like to see included?

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Nazi Sozi

Those Damned Nazis

Hammer of the Patriot

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe we could use some of these as a model and re-write them with modern parties? Might be a good start for OP's idea.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Wasn't /u/Fitter_Happier going to make something like this for the sub wiki?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah but he never got around to it. Which is ok. Maybe I will try to get it started when I get some time.

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

the earth is flat, the argument can't actually be refuted without pictures from big gov or big corp ..

it honestly isn't an argument, is just me telling people what they failed to notice (and so did I for many years)

if 'the argument' is allowed to continue without interruption, and honest participants truly examining the evidence

the earth is flat.

here is a collection of the evidence

https://ifers.123.st/

now you see why your idea will fail. it isn't because the argument needs to happen, it is because people fail to look at and honestly have a discussion that can be debated.

often debates occur around topics that the debaters have no authority to change their opinion on..

religious debates against abortion are like this .. (if you agree, there is no 'evidence' that will change your mind)

i think people fail to recognize situations like these.. that are 'non-negotiable' .. and like abortion we are just gonna hafta accept that people make their own choices .. tho I think people have been shielded from those damaged by abortions and hearing their stories

other things, like the flat earth SHOULD BE OPEN FOR DEBATE

because you fail to notice you have zero evidence of a ball earth to point at, that is a problem

but people literally refuse to engage, because they 'know they are right'

but also because.. they know if they do see the earth as flat.. well they know what they have been saying all these years.

[–]mongre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hate to break it to you but idiots existed loooong before the internet. There used to be crappy arguments galore but they were verbal or printed. Verbally you could destroy your opponent but via print you had to publish to contradict. Now everyone is a publisher.

Nonetheless the problem has been dealt with. I give you the encyclopedia you seek:

http://logicalfallacies.org/