"Many find themselves arguing with someone on the Internet, especially in these days fraught with political tensions. A great tool, the web also seems to drive dispute. It is also a reflection of the larger reality, where divisiveness has spread throughout our society. A classic essay from one of the Internet’s pioneers suggests that there is a way to harness such negative energy of the online world and disagree with people without invoking anger—a lesson that extends far beyond the web."
Nice thought that I don't really disagree with, but you have to agree on definitions and methodology to get to the top of that pyramid, and sadly, when dealing with theists, this seldom happens. Even when you hammer out common definitions and methodology (usually with more liberal theists) they can still move the goal posts to protect their beliefs. Sometimes even the most liberal, inclusive theist gets defensive and tetchy around the existence of god.
Nice chart. I'm at the "Counter argument" and up level. Most of my discussions never reach the top because they enter the "we agree to disagree" stage.
I used to argue by fair means or foul. Then I grew more and tempered the beast. Now, older still, I know no one actually listens or wants to change, so I've turned to the web, different sites, podcasts and groups where the discussions and debates are actually about substance rather than putdowns and platitudes. With age comes both practicality and cynicism.
@Angelface oh, I hardly argue face-to-face. The last time was a football game. Well, it wasn't really an argument. More a discussion. And, yeah, my friend couldn't accept the facts I tried to present. We were at a football game after all.
After a while, the older couple in front of us turned and said: "Climate change is like religion and politics. You don't talk about them at a footy match." True. Hahaha!