Malice

[ZenitYerkes]

You see, this is one of the most upsetting things that somebody can show me on a debate. Not that people can do something in their own benefit and incidentally hurt the others, but malice is about harming without making any good to you.

I've posted an overpopulation topic on the AF Debate zone, and suddenly Spock turned up trying to prove me wrong. You'd say that it's the most common thing on debates; but it was a destructive critique. See, instead of giving his point of view, he just went around attacking.

Is that a way to find solutions, or just a tool to feel superior over someone saying "I'm right, you're wrong because you can't answer this"?

Sorry for making a whole thread about this, but it really upsets me and wanted to see if there's people who feel the same as I do.

"Never attack if there's no advantage in it" The art of War, by Sun Tzu

[Fkeu'itan]

Attacking someone never advances a debate. If anything, it actually just sidetracks it. In addition to this, I believe it more often than not signifies you're running out of real argumentative points.

[Pa'li Makto]

Spock said himself: he likes to rub salt into the wound.
I remain tight-lipped about this.
I think that people shouldn't be taken down for expressing an
opinion, no matter if you believe it to be right or wrong.
What happened to freedom of speech?

[txen]

While it's clear that Spock strongly disagrees with you, I didn't see any personal attacks. I really would not consider the content or tone of his response rises to the level of "malice." His final comment was a bit on the harsh side, but I think that is more his style than anything else.

It helps to have a thick skin when getting into an internet debate. Not everyone will agree with you. Some will go off in upsetting ways.

It is my estimation that Spock likes verbal sparring. I would have little issue taking him on if I thought it was deserved. I have a thick skin. I also have no issue agreeing to disagree. Just because I disagree with someone does not mean I can not be their friend. It would be a boring world if we all believed the same things.


UPDATE: He did cross the line in his later posts. Still not sure it is really malice though. It was not proper behavior that is for sure.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

You see, this is one of the most upsetting things that somebody can show me on a debate. Not that people can do something in their own benefit and incidentally hurt the others, but malice is about harming without making any good to you.

I've posted an overpopulation topic on the AF Debate zone, and suddenly Spock turned up trying to prove me wrong. You'd say that it's the most common thing on debates; but it was a destructive critique. See, instead of giving his point of view, he just went around attacking.

Is that a way to find solutions, or just a tool to feel superior over someone saying "I'm right, you're wrong because you can't answer this"?

Sorry for making a whole thread about this, but it really upsets me and wanted to see if there's people who feel the same as I do.

"Never attack if there's no advantage in it" The art of War, by Sun Tzu

That is a very poor way to debate. At no time should it devolve into personal attacks. It doesn't help the argument. If it is the same topic that you are referring to (I just looked at the one that I was thinking of, it did get heated) I know that one went out of control and got heated. The topic is very emotional. Personally, I think there are ways to work with nature, not against her, for the benefit of mankind too. I personally find the attitude disturbing that most of the population needs to die in order to help the earth. I know this is probably off the topic in question. Perhaps we can have that debate somewhere else.

I personally didn't see any malice either and some of the suggestions are very disturbing and offensive. But I will probably not respond to it since my opinion won't be worth much in that debate .

[Human No More]

In my experience, people generally make attacks when they know that they couldn't win through actual discussion.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Human No More

In my experience, people generally make attacks when they know that they couldn't win through actual discussion.

Exactly. That is why one should have facts in hand with sources when debating. IF it devolves into an attack then they aren't debating at all and they don't have an argument.

[Sovereign]

Ad hominum attack - Going after the person instead of the ideas they put forward. Small minds discuss people. Great minds discuss ideas. Cannot remember where that quote is from, but it's true.

[Tudhalyas]

Originally Posted by Human No More

In my experience, people generally make attacks when they know that they couldn't win through actual discussion.

This.

[ZenitYerkes]

Thanks people.