Anatomy of a Fruitless Social Media Argument

To call what I am about to analyze as a "debate" is a misnomer. Such a word is a mere show of politeness. More accurately, I mean senseless waste of time. Let's begin.

I myself do not participate in Facebook debates a lot. When I see something I deem disagreeable, I pass along. I mostly read them and see what other people are thinking. But when someone challenges my view on my posts, I gladly accept and reply. But then again I soon begin to realize that it was a mistake to engage in such an activity for I should have realize that, chances are, the person commenting does not know how to argue for his or her own position with great thought. In order to prevent you from being that lesser Facebook's (or any other social media outlet's) netizen, I wish to provide you an example of something that resembles a fruitless Facebook debate, showing where things can go wrong.

Let me begin with a loose (and ludicrous) example:

Original Post (OP): "Bears are boring for they lack the entertainment value of Battlestar Galactica."

Challenger (CR): "Bears are not trying to be boring. They are just trying to be cute and cuddly for the masses. And are you seriously shaming all the bears for lacking some entertainment value?"

OP: "I'm not saying that bears are trying to be boring, but that they consequently are. And I'm not shaming bears. I'm just stating my opinion."

CR: "You would see just how entertaining bears are if you look past your prejudice. And you should stop with your hasty generalizations; they are logical fallacies. Not all bears are boring."

     Let's look at where things went wrong.

1) "Boring" is a subjective concept applied to a particular subject. In this case, the word is applied to Bears. It's akin to words like "offensive," "spicy," and "exciting."For most Koreans, American football is boring. Americans would of course disagree. Many Americans would consider cricket to be a boring sport. Members of the Commonwealth, however, would disagree. Some would consider bears, beets, and Battlestar Galactica to be boring. Someone might not. The fact that CR began a discussion about it is silly.

2) CR says that the OP was "shaming" all the bears. The context of the words do not suggest that OP was shaming the bears. To have concluded as such suggests that CR projected his own flawed interpretation unto OP's words. It becomes ever-apparent that CR is getting a little too personal and emotionally attached and unable to contain the said emotion by using the word "seriously."And when emotions are not contained, it is more likely that an interpreter would misinterpret and imbue undue meaning to other's words.

3) "Look past your prejudice," says CR. There is no telling that OP is prejudicial to Bears. The OP merely suggests a conclusion a person has reached in comparison to his attitude toward Battlestar Galactica. A more proper response by CR would have been: "How did you come by that conclusion? What parts of Battlestar Galactica are more entertaining to you than bears?" In turn, CR himself exercised prejudice against OP.

4) CR attempts to point out to logical fallacies OP was supposedly making, hasty generalization in particular. Objectively speaking, there is no telling OP made a hasty generalization. He merely shared a conclusion he arrived at on Facebook. There is zero evidence that OP made a "sweeping" generalization. Many people memorize a bunch of logical fallacies off of a chart they found somewhere online or in a logic 101 class, the contents of which they barely remember. But it becomes clear that they have not mastered the practical applicability of logic in an everyday setting.

5) CR says "not all bears are boring." CR does not follow it up with premises supporting that conclusion. At this point, whatever hope there was of there being a fruitful discussion is gone. Without premises supporting a conclusion, one person cannot understand the other.

These are common mistakes people make on Facebook and in Twitter wars. To sum it up, they are:
1) Arguing over subjective application of a word.
2) Misinterpretation of others' words.
3) Prejudice against someone you disagree with.
4) Fallacious accusations of logical fallacies.
5) Arguing against a conclusion with a conclusion unsupported by premises.