Or are some posting styles genuinely more effective (purely in terms of style as opposed to factual content) than others? Does it depend on the subject matter? The opponent?
I think it has a lot to do with being able to comprehend the exact position of the person you're debating. I personally have found myself talking in circles with someone because I didn't comprehend what they wrote and I assumed something else. Only to find out that we pretty much agreed but I dragged it on.
It also requires, especially on a site like this where science is discussed at such an intellectual level, a true knowledge on the subject. In some topics, we can all
sound like we know what the hell we're talking about, but really we don't. So we can get caught in a debate that we don't know too much about and end up arguing endlessly in the wrong direction.
So I say both a real knowledge on the subject being discussed and a good ability to comprehend what the person you're debating wrote.
With that said, my favorite posters are Mod in philosophical threads and Wounded King in biology/genetic's threads.
(
There are many other posters that are just as good but these two are just my personal favorites)
Neither of them gets too emotional (something a lot of us tend to do
) and they seem to be able to select the proper points being made by the person they're debating and breakdown their argument effectively. Which means they keep the debate on topic and don't veer of into a personal attack.
I envy both of their methods of posting. I don't think I'll ever know as much as them on the subjects they're so effective in, but I'd like to get to their level of debating. But I get pissed off too much.
- Oni