How would you redefine the meaning of argumentation with respect to social media?
Naku po I would first define how it is now as, "walang patutunguhan" (kidding 1/2). In all seriousness, benefit of the doubt is key. The consideration that one "could be wrong" is a crucial factor in my redefinition of socmed argumentation. The belief that an individual or entity is completely right, final, and absolute immediately leaves no room for argumentation - or at least the civilized, academic one that we are referring to.
We can all learn from the film 12 Angry Men when Juror 8, the lone opposition vote, introduced the concept of doubt among his fellow jurors. "All I'm saying is we could be wrong," he stressed, unable to agree with the majority because doubt exists. Although a courtroom setting is very much different from online argumentation, we can adopt the concept of reasonable doubt, or at least doubt, before we make a decision. This benefit of the doubt would enable a truly listening - reading in this case - ear that seeks to argue for clarity, not competition. Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Snoeck put it best when they said, "Arguing makes sense only if there is a listener or reader who entertains doubt about an opinion or has a diverging opinion."
We are not slaves who merely accept things for the way they are. In the same way, why would we accept a seemingly majority stance without deliberation? With that, the second factor to my redefinition is the willingness to discuss. While some enter an argument already resolute in their stance, [I think] so long as there is openness to discussion, all parties can still achieve a fruitful social media argumentation, albeit with a little bardagulan.
However civilized, academic, or wise through their years one has proven to be, these two factors cannot come into play without all parties lowering their pride. Thus, emotions play a huge factor, if not completely define, social media argumentation today. If we want to redefine that, we must first apply benefit of the doubt and willingness to discuss ourselves before we expect it from others.
We can all learn from the film 12 Angry Men when Juror 8, the lone opposition vote, introduced the concept of doubt among his fellow jurors. "All I'm saying is we could be wrong," he stressed, unable to agree with the majority because doubt exists. Although a courtroom setting is very much different from online argumentation, we can adopt the concept of reasonable doubt, or at least doubt, before we make a decision. This benefit of the doubt would enable a truly listening - reading in this case - ear that seeks to argue for clarity, not competition. Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Snoeck put it best when they said, "Arguing makes sense only if there is a listener or reader who entertains doubt about an opinion or has a diverging opinion."
We are not slaves who merely accept things for the way they are. In the same way, why would we accept a seemingly majority stance without deliberation? With that, the second factor to my redefinition is the willingness to discuss. While some enter an argument already resolute in their stance, [I think] so long as there is openness to discussion, all parties can still achieve a fruitful social media argumentation, albeit with a little bardagulan.
However civilized, academic, or wise through their years one has proven to be, these two factors cannot come into play without all parties lowering their pride. Thus, emotions play a huge factor, if not completely define, social media argumentation today. If we want to redefine that, we must first apply benefit of the doubt and willingness to discuss ourselves before we expect it from others.
This is like what I have read in some article before that says that when arguing, be part of the conversation. You are not there to teach. You are not there to indoctrinate your philosophy to some people. You are there to hear them and possible find a way to resolve an issue, which can only happen if you acknowledge you could be wrong in some aspects as well.
Hi Bienne! In recent years I have observed that most people on social media tend to be unnecessarily "righteous" at times. Like what you said, there should be a benefit of the doubt instead of just "cancelling" someone without knowing the full story. Oftentimes, I scroll through Tiktok and whether it be local or international videos, I always see people arguing over the most miniscule things. Everyone wants to push their opinions on others and use degrading language to prove their point. Many use fallacies and have no hesitations because they know that social media gives them a sort of safety blanket (anonymity) where they can just say anything without any consequences.
You have made some excellent and note-worthy points, Bienne. As an impulsive person, I resonated and agreed with you that emotions do play a factor in online argumentation. It is much easier to just say things out of spite or anger but again, this defeats the purpose of argumentation which is to provide a sound and systematic approach to why your thoughts matter. Aside from fruitful discussions, as you said, it can also help us enlighten others with the truth- no matter how difficult it is to explain.
Great insight here, Bienne. Indeed, we cannot always insist that we are the one in the right. After reading the line you quoted from the film 12 Angry Men, I also remember one of the quotes from the film The Sea Beast: "You can be a hero and still be wrong." I believe this one line somehow conveyed the same message that you were trying to relay. While considering a differing perspective especially when there are objective truths the can support this is not equivalent to accepting it, we can all agree that openess is critical in argumentation.
I love the "walang patutunguhan" because when I read the question I also thought it is pointless to try to argue on social media. However, I do agree that the factor that is vital to argumentation is the willingness to listen, which everyone does not possess hence making an argumentation pointless. I guess, social media argumentation would be effective if the participating people possess what you have mentioned the doubt that they "could be wrong". That's hard to achieve but not impossible.
I agree with you, Bienne, that arguments that are supposed to be healthy conversation in social media are just pointless. One factor that plays a big role in this situation is the social media algorithm that keeps the internet an unhealthy avenue for discourse. While it is true that at some point, it is still the people who need to keep an open mind to new information that could either support or oppose their current views, social media algorithm has cultivated echo chambers among personal accounts as the content being shown on one's feed is curated based on one's internet activities and preferences. This algorithm has helped disinformation to flourish as more people becomes detached to facts and reality due to curated news feed content. Ultimately, social media discourse has contributed in the further polarization of internet users, instead of guarding the truth that needs to be heard.
That is true, Bienne. Since politics is personal, it is easy to give people the benefit of doubt and choose not to acknowledge their opinions because of our preconceptions towards them as people. Since politics is an arena where different sectors vie for representation, a lot of political discussions can also feel like battles for that representation. It is important to remind ourselves of the merit of an argument regardless of who makes it.
I definitely agree with the "walang patutunguhan", Bienne! I think we share the same belief that arguing with an individual who believes that they are completely right or has the final say is pointless. It would not even be an argument at all, it will just be like talking to a wall, which I believe happens a lot online. It's either they refuse to listen to you or they completely miss the point that you are trying to deliver.
I agree, Bienne! Especially now that social media can be curated like a "For You Page", it doesn't help that it only fuels what we think is "right" without thinking objectively about the information we consume almost daily. This kind of thinking makes it harder to have a productive conversation because we're already thinking about "how we can prove the other person wrong".
People constantly post and comment on their thoughts and opinions on social media. Most of the time, these opinions and views are used by businesses and people from the government to improve their services or jobs towards their customers and the people who voted for them. If I were to redefine the meaning of argumentation with respect to social media, I would define it as "a form of an eye-catching and thought-provoking statement or comment by an individual or group whose goal is to capture the attention of many and deliver their point across whether directly or indirectly."
I believe this definition is applicable, especially nowadays, when we can see that people who are active on social media post and comment on their opinions in a thought-provoking manner. This leads to some people engaging in the post, positively or negatively, which becomes a thread of people discussing and arguing which side is better. Moreover, some people on social media post very long comments, which indirectly veer away from the topic posted on a specific page. A good example is a person commenting on the good things that the President's father has done in the Philippines, whereas the topic is about the achievements of the ex-President's son. We can mostly see this from people who are not knowledgeable on the subject and only want to gather the public's attention through their impulsive and half-witted comments.
What I wrote above are some of the detrimental effects of my definition of argumentation in social media. However, we cannot discount that social media has also become an avenue for connecting people with similar minds and interests on a specific topic. In my experience, I was able to comment on my thoughts and opinions, especially during the election season, which sparked a lot of positive feedback from people with a similar mindset as mine. I witnessed how argumentation works in a healthy and meaningful manner rather than through ad hominem attacks and unhealthy discussions.
So, in essence, argumentation in social media has positive and negative outcomes. Its definition cannot be placed inside a box because we all have different opinions and thoughts about such topics. My only hope is that we always use our critical thinking abilities and learn how to decipher which comments we should engage in or not. Because as Miss Universe 2015 Pia Wurtzbach once said, "Think before you click."
I believe this definition is applicable, especially nowadays, when we can see that people who are active on social media post and comment on their opinions in a thought-provoking manner. This leads to some people engaging in the post, positively or negatively, which becomes a thread of people discussing and arguing which side is better. Moreover, some people on social media post very long comments, which indirectly veer away from the topic posted on a specific page. A good example is a person commenting on the good things that the President's father has done in the Philippines, whereas the topic is about the achievements of the ex-President's son. We can mostly see this from people who are not knowledgeable on the subject and only want to gather the public's attention through their impulsive and half-witted comments.
What I wrote above are some of the detrimental effects of my definition of argumentation in social media. However, we cannot discount that social media has also become an avenue for connecting people with similar minds and interests on a specific topic. In my experience, I was able to comment on my thoughts and opinions, especially during the election season, which sparked a lot of positive feedback from people with a similar mindset as mine. I witnessed how argumentation works in a healthy and meaningful manner rather than through ad hominem attacks and unhealthy discussions.
So, in essence, argumentation in social media has positive and negative outcomes. Its definition cannot be placed inside a box because we all have different opinions and thoughts about such topics. My only hope is that we always use our critical thinking abilities and learn how to decipher which comments we should engage in or not. Because as Miss Universe 2015 Pia Wurtzbach once said, "Think before you click."
This is true, social media has allowed us to see how diverse people think - so it has always been a challenge how to unify our sentiments. I would also like to comment on your third paragraph which was one of the many great experiences I had in the recent elections. It was nice seeing people, from lolas, tatays, to very young kids, who know and fight for their principles. Ika nga ng the great poet, doctorate degree holder Taylor Swift -- to live for the hope of it all.
This is an interesting redefinition of argumentation, Quim. Having the characteristic of being easily accessible to most people coming from different backgrounds certainly presented an opportunity for interactions and dialogues that may not have been possible without the platform. I also do share the same sentiment that within the context of social media, argumentation had given us perspective on both benefits and drawbacks that had occurred, especially in the recently concluded elections. Echoing what you shared, there is a positive outlook we and others be able to always demonstrate critical analysis on every situation presented especially when communicating and sharing both our personal insights and replies to whomever we encounter.
Well said, Quim. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would like to double down on how the recent elections made us see argumentation in a different light. I also experienced the same when I encountered troll relatives and apologist Facebook friends. It can get quite tempting to just be as irrational as them and act half our age but being strategic helped me revert these unhealthy discussions and turn the conversation into what it is really about. I guess it also has something to do with what you mentioned about argumentation being a double-edged sword. Hopefully, we can continue to use our degree as well to present the truth logically and help others understand why it is important to fully understand something before commenting obnoxiously.
Hi, Quim! I agree with your redefinition of argumentation in the context of social media. As someone who is an active social media user, I have experienced firsthand argumentation on different social media platforms. A significant event I have experienced is the 'cancel culture' in Twitter community, specifically within Korean pop fan accounts. Many fan accounts that tweet provocative or somewhat controversial takes are often prosecuted by the people in their same community. A part of your redefinition states that the "goal is to capture the attention of many". Contrary to this part of your definition, however, most fan account owners don't even plan on being thought-provoking, and just randomly tweet their thoughts due to their high level of comfort - only to be met by harsh criticism and a large number of fan accounts teaming up to argue against one person. Although essentially, argumentation should help a community reach a resolution, most argumentation that happens in social media doesn't do this, which is why Ms. Pia is entirely correct - think before you click.
Definitely agree with people becoming more impulsive due to the fast-consumption nature of social media platforms, Quim. The digital world is definitely a double-edged sword. For instance, it can be either 1) a platform for people to connect with those who have similar ideas (as what you mentioned) or, 2) create silos / echo chambers. Such definitions of argumentation and even the use of online websites really does depend on how the consumer will utilize them to deepen or share their knowledge.
I particularly liked Quim's definition, as it encapsulates the behavior of people on social media and argumentation itself. Argumentation is, in essence, getting your point across whereas social media is all about relatability, i.e. capturing attention. Argumentation with respect to social media then is combining these two.
For me, argumentation in terms of social media has its own mechanics as compared to formal argumentation. In most cases, dumping too many facts such as in the form of articles/journals bear no impact on most of the people on the internet contrary to academic debate, for instance. To win an argument on social media, one needs to be strategic. One needs to find an angle of the argument that the audience can resonate with the most. One needs to avoid sounding too condescending. I would like to believe that in this aspect, simplicity is the key. I like that we started with this question. In this era, it is important to recognize this avenue of persuading people as it can affect our lives from the most trivial to the most consequential matter. Case in point: Marcos Jr.'s online propaganda machinery that has lead us to 6 years of suffering :))
I agree Vince! These days simplicity is key in order to be heard by the general public. In most cases using complex language can even be a disadvantage because of the current trend of "smart shaming" which seems to be rampant in social media as well.
Your statement certainly presents an interesting viewpoint, Vince! Engaging in argumentation, especially in the recent world of technology and social media, people are not particularly receptive should it be a lot due to potentially overwhelming them or having presented jargon that they are not really familiar with even if technicality provides certain merits when laying down facts and information. Further, there needs to be a definite and specific elaboration on how we can approach others, specifically people that have opposing or differing viewpoints than ours. Through social media, we can see how the central and peripheral routes come to play with people's reception of another's insights and commentaries.
I agree with you, Vince. Most people think that the longer or deeper the words are in their online commentaries, the more convincing and rightful they are. This actually reminds me of Jam Magno, who always tried her best to act like she has her case in point, and presents hard facts by making simple statements overcomplicated or high falutin. They say that the quote "simplicity is key" is already a cliche, but cliches are truly cliches for a reason. Thus, we must make it our goal to become understandable, aside from being intentional and knowledgeable, whenever we engage in intellectual discussions and argumentations online.
I couldn't agree more with your comments, Vince and Aj. I was totally nodding my head with your example too, Aj! Unfortunately, people in social media tend to be more fascinated with high falutin words as if this manner of argument adds credibility to the claim. What's worse, the low reading comprehension of Filipinos is actually hindering them to see beyond the flowery words.
I definitely agree with your sentiments, Vince. In social media, people do not want to read too many facts as our attention span is like that of a goldfish so simplicity is really the key to deliver an effective argument in social media. Moreover, I also agree that we all need to learn how powerful social media is in terms of persuading people because it can shape our future.
I agree with you, Vince! Nobody wants to be 'educated' if people makes them feel inferior or terrible for holding on to opinions or principles that could have been caused by faulty social systems. It is hard but to always be the understanding one, and a bit illogical to use emotions as basis of one's arguments, but in order to win their hearts and make them recognize the truth, one must create a meaningful connection with the other. In this age of disinformation and the looming fascism under the Marcos Jr. presidency, all efforts are needed to remind the people how monstrous the Marcos family is and that without justice, there should be no reconciliation. Until then, along with our chants of Never Forget, Never again, humility and compassion should always be with our message, to spark change in peoples' mind.
I agree with this, Vince! Especially the part where you said that social media has its own mechanics and we have to be strategic if we want to argue online. I think aside from patience, strategy is a must-have when you want to engage in online discourse. You have to be knowledgeable about the topic at hand and you also have to know what kind of person you are arguing with in order to be able to deliver your argument in a way that they would understand and accept.
This is true, Vince! Sometimes, just to get attention or "clout", people who are uninformed on the topics themselves (like minors) join in just to please or have people back them up since their take on an issue is what people resonate with the most. When people encourage each other like that without thinking objectively, it can only really lead to unproductive fighting.
I agree with Vince's take that social media argumentation is a different landscape from formal argumentation. Wits must be used strategically.
If I were to look at my own experiences with digital argumentation, I could give two main definitions for it. Argumentation is 1) a digital avenue to highlight a shared understanding of society and 2) a powerful tool to logically express our identity.
First, argumentation contributes significantly to society's sensemaking process about relevant issues and events. For instance, when people post comments and status updates about the recent transportation fare hike, we get to explore varying realities- some may be favorable, some are not, and some end up commenting memes to ease the depth of the discussion. But through these varying lenses and expressions of either celebration or grief, we get to experience an understanding of how these issues can affect all of us as one society. We get to hear sentiments from factory workers who would have to reallocate their day-to-day wages due to this fare hike and at the same time, we also get to read the sentiments of jeepney drivers who are left with no choice but to support this hike to make their ends meet. Through these varying perspectives, we are able to understand an issue from all angles and make sense of the world without the limitations of our privilege bubble. At the end of the day, we develop an understanding that the problem is not one side or the other, but the bigger stakeholder (i.e. the government) that contributes to this uncontrollable economic decline.
Second, argumentation is a powerful communicative tool that allows us to logically express our identities. One example of this is during the recent elections which have been heart-breaking for many and celebration-worthy for some. The way we reacted to daily news and updates about the candidates last May showed how different we are from each other. From the way we express our support through either art, memes, or inspirational paragraphs, to the way we were able to organize a taste of hope in the hands of good governance through digital invitations and even marketing strategies, we were able to express who we are and what we fight for. It showed a glimpse of our identities, the same way it revealed the identities of internet trolls, die-hard supporters, and apologists. This whole election argumentation fiasco all boils down to intention and purpose. While some are arguing for the sake of arguing, a lot of the people that I know, argued for the sake of educating others.
While it is true that argumentation can be a double-edged sword, the accessibility of social media had led us to manipulate its definition the way we want it to be. Indeed, only the wise can define it with the right intention and only the close-minded would see it as a petty move to let their pride win a non-existent debate.
First, argumentation contributes significantly to society's sensemaking process about relevant issues and events. For instance, when people post comments and status updates about the recent transportation fare hike, we get to explore varying realities- some may be favorable, some are not, and some end up commenting memes to ease the depth of the discussion. But through these varying lenses and expressions of either celebration or grief, we get to experience an understanding of how these issues can affect all of us as one society. We get to hear sentiments from factory workers who would have to reallocate their day-to-day wages due to this fare hike and at the same time, we also get to read the sentiments of jeepney drivers who are left with no choice but to support this hike to make their ends meet. Through these varying perspectives, we are able to understand an issue from all angles and make sense of the world without the limitations of our privilege bubble. At the end of the day, we develop an understanding that the problem is not one side or the other, but the bigger stakeholder (i.e. the government) that contributes to this uncontrollable economic decline.
Second, argumentation is a powerful communicative tool that allows us to logically express our identities. One example of this is during the recent elections which have been heart-breaking for many and celebration-worthy for some. The way we reacted to daily news and updates about the candidates last May showed how different we are from each other. From the way we express our support through either art, memes, or inspirational paragraphs, to the way we were able to organize a taste of hope in the hands of good governance through digital invitations and even marketing strategies, we were able to express who we are and what we fight for. It showed a glimpse of our identities, the same way it revealed the identities of internet trolls, die-hard supporters, and apologists. This whole election argumentation fiasco all boils down to intention and purpose. While some are arguing for the sake of arguing, a lot of the people that I know, argued for the sake of educating others.
While it is true that argumentation can be a double-edged sword, the accessibility of social media had led us to manipulate its definition the way we want it to be. Indeed, only the wise can define it with the right intention and only the close-minded would see it as a petty move to let their pride win a non-existent debate.
I love how you gave not one but two powerful definitions of argumentation with respect to social media, AJ! I believe that argumentation significantly affects the society's sense making especially in social media because as the boomers are saying "we are now in a WOKE society" wherein we constantly debate and argue our opinions on certain matters that affect us in social media. I am certain that these debates and arguments in social media can either teach us valuable things and help us avoid certain uneducated and illogical reasonings. Moreover, I want to highlight what you wrote in your last paragraph because I also believe that only people who have the right intentions and clear mind can take the posts and comments in social media objectively while those who are close-minded will sadly remain close-minded.
When I think of argumentation in the context of social media, the first definition that comes to mind is “bardagulan.” Admittedly, it is far from the scholarly definition of argumentation, and oftentimes social media discredit the notion of argumentation. I can barely identify the banters that I usually see on the Internet as argumentation since what you will commonly witness are exchanges of ad hominems.
But if I would redefine argumentation with respect to social media, I would say: “the use of appealing statements to intentionally influence the readers to accept a claim.” To explain this definition, I will break down my definition to two keywords: “appealing statements” and “intentionally influence.”
Appealing statements don’t need to be logical as long as they evoke a response from the reader. Examples of these are the usual comments made by Internet trolls. They lack the logical evidence to support their claim, but ironically, their nonsenseness appeals to a reader to a point that you can’t help but pumatol. As for the second keyword, both social media and argumentation have the means to influence. No need to further elaborate when we already witnessed how with the influence of online trolls the new administration came to power.
As we live in the digital age, argumentation in social media has also evolved — becoming accessible to everyone in the platform. By accessible, I meant to say that once a post is set to public, anyone with an account is free to butt in on the conversation. Comparing it to the traditional argumentation where there are usually two sides at most, argumentation in social media can reveal different sides of a story and thus give light to more than two perspectives. Sharing the sentiments of my classmates who commented on the duality of argumentation in social media, I guess one of the silver lining of social media is how it made argumentation more inclusive and tolerant to differences.
But if I would redefine argumentation with respect to social media, I would say: “the use of appealing statements to intentionally influence the readers to accept a claim.” To explain this definition, I will break down my definition to two keywords: “appealing statements” and “intentionally influence.”
Appealing statements don’t need to be logical as long as they evoke a response from the reader. Examples of these are the usual comments made by Internet trolls. They lack the logical evidence to support their claim, but ironically, their nonsenseness appeals to a reader to a point that you can’t help but pumatol. As for the second keyword, both social media and argumentation have the means to influence. No need to further elaborate when we already witnessed how with the influence of online trolls the new administration came to power.
As we live in the digital age, argumentation in social media has also evolved — becoming accessible to everyone in the platform. By accessible, I meant to say that once a post is set to public, anyone with an account is free to butt in on the conversation. Comparing it to the traditional argumentation where there are usually two sides at most, argumentation in social media can reveal different sides of a story and thus give light to more than two perspectives. Sharing the sentiments of my classmates who commented on the duality of argumentation in social media, I guess one of the silver lining of social media is how it made argumentation more inclusive and tolerant to differences.
I agree Ely! If we actually redefine argumentation with respect to social media, it is not possible to not mention "accessibility to everyone" because its that unique characteristic that social media adds to argumentation. It surely allows anybody to give their "two cents" to any topic and just share their thoughts whether it would be substantial or not to the discussion. There's a good and bad side to this, but I also agree that it promotes inclusivity and give voice to anyone who wants to speak.
Interesting definitions, Ely! Your comprehensive descriptions have given me a fresh insight about how one may already win the argument on social media if they already received replies or reactions from it. Aside from internet trolls, this may also be by marketing or PR agencies to make people talk about a certain idea, topic, or even product. If one aims to get publicity or go viral for the content they produced (may it be a status, opinion video, or even commercial) AND successfully did so, then they were already able to influence their audience to spread such ideas around.
Argumentation concerning social media would just be a process of unlimited exchange of opinions between people who can access it. This is because every user can freely access discussions, and comments and reply to them, so anybody can butt in. They can be opposed to the initial comment, agree to it, or just be "epal" - there would be no limit. With this, I do not think that social media can be a place or a medium for "proper" argumentation because its accessibility is more of a nuisance than provide efficiency. It would not be a smooth process of constructive communication. Most of the time there are no sound and justified proofs - based on what I usually read, and how people disappear when others ask for their references. In short, the standards of argumentation (clarity, honesty, efficiency, and relevance) would not be always applied if it's on social media.
However, since there are two sides to a coin, argumentation in social media would still have the following characteristics or good sides. There would be brainstorming because there are many points of view that we could try to look at. There would be a discovery of knowledge though little. It would still elicit emotion and try to influence beliefs. And there is a controversy or a topic worth discussing.
However, since there are two sides to a coin, argumentation in social media would still have the following characteristics or good sides. There would be brainstorming because there are many points of view that we could try to look at. There would be a discovery of knowledge though little. It would still elicit emotion and try to influence beliefs. And there is a controversy or a topic worth discussing.
I feel the exact same way about argumentation in social media, Abby! Just about anyone can add to the conversation, and as much as we want inclusivity when it comes to argumentation, it is important that the people contributing to the argument has relevance to it. The easy access to social media, however, prevents this. At the same time, it does provide a wider variety of inputs.
That is true, Bea! Since everyone on the internet is anonymous, it will also be unreasonable for any person to discredit anyone's opinion on any matter purely because they are from a specific demographic. It's important to not fall victim to that ad hominem fallacy when interacting with strangers.
If I were to redefine 'argumentation' in the context of social media, it would be similar to its traditional definiton of influencing beliefs or behavior through written messages or spoken language. It's main difference, on the other hand, is that there would be a lack of reasoning or proof.
As someone who spends alot of time in social media, it's pretty common for me to witness nonsensical argumentation in the comments section or posts such as videos. With the power of anonymity given to netizens, many do not care about being logical and often neglect reason when arguing. Some of them would even just argue for the sake of arguing. Most of the time, their goal is just to ruin someone's day and use fallacies to degrade or hurt other people. There are not much consequences when it comes to arguing in social media especially when you're using a "dummy" account. Because of this, the original essence of argumentation is lost. It became superficial where everyone just wants to be right. Honestly, I find arguing in social media to be a waste of time. I've learned to just look away and interact with posts and comments that are worth my time and engage with people who are open to having a healthy discussion.
I agree that in many instances, people could make better use of their time instead of arguing online! This is not only true for people who are illogical or irrational. This is also true for actual intellectuals who spend time talking too much in social media, but are not actually making efforts to reach their target audience. In most cases, it is obvious that the people who will engage with their tweets or posts are people who already share the same stance. There are a lot of people who would only argue in social media for the sake of what they call "intellectual masturbation" instead of going out and exhausting all possible means of convincing the people they want to convince.
I believe argumentation with respect to social media is still the appeal to logic in pursuit of convincing someone. There are still deontological and teleological implications of arguments in social media conflicts, but the argumentation in social media is less rule-governed, and logic is not always necessarily used to appeal to the people you are trying convince.
A lot of people on social media have the affordance of anonymity, which may exempt them from maintaining courtesy and even allow them to abandon the use of logic in their arguments. People on social media may feel strongly about things and not bother to flesh out their arguments and decide to appeal to emotion in their rhetoric. They may also simply choose to verbally attack the people they are trying to convince. The essence of argumentation as collaboration is very easy to lose on the internet as it is easy to feel free from the consequences of irrationality on the internet as opposed to in real life interactions.
A lot of people on social media have the affordance of anonymity, which may exempt them from maintaining courtesy and even allow them to abandon the use of logic in their arguments. People on social media may feel strongly about things and not bother to flesh out their arguments and decide to appeal to emotion in their rhetoric. They may also simply choose to verbally attack the people they are trying to convince. The essence of argumentation as collaboration is very easy to lose on the internet as it is easy to feel free from the consequences of irrationality on the internet as opposed to in real life interactions.
I actually believe that argumentation is arguing with a veil over our faces. Social media is a platform that does not have the same dynamism as real life verbal argumentation, or the identity confirmation with argumentative documents and papers. People have the advantage of choosing not to read responses, disengaging at most convenient times, using false identities, or resorting to anonymity in social media. This is why many people get extremely confident in social media; arguing in this platform makes the stakes and the risks significantly lower compared to what it's like in real life. We don't need to think too fast, we don't need to experience choking, we don't need to reveal our identity. In the worst case that we are losing, it is so easy to opt out, deactivate, or block. We have no way of confirming if we are engaging in productive discourse, or if the people we are arguing with are trolls. This veil serves as people's shield to protect themselves from the perceived harms of real-life argumentation.
Unfortunately, this veil has been an active contributor to a lot of chaos in society. Instead of truly looking for resolutions and listening to what other parties have to say, people tend to stick to the beliefs of their echo chambers. Polarization has become worse throughout the years, and it had severe effects on politics, elections, and community-building. However, this veil has also helped many individuals who have no chance to speak their mind in real life. The veil of social media argumentation has given people safe spaces to express themselves and what they stand for, without having to face the punishments they would otherwise have received if they spoke their minds in non-digital spaces.
Perhaps argumentation in social media lets people wear veils. Whether it is for the better or for worse of society is something we will continue to see unfold as we approach an era that is even more digitalized than ever before.
Unfortunately, this veil has been an active contributor to a lot of chaos in society. Instead of truly looking for resolutions and listening to what other parties have to say, people tend to stick to the beliefs of their echo chambers. Polarization has become worse throughout the years, and it had severe effects on politics, elections, and community-building. However, this veil has also helped many individuals who have no chance to speak their mind in real life. The veil of social media argumentation has given people safe spaces to express themselves and what they stand for, without having to face the punishments they would otherwise have received if they spoke their minds in non-digital spaces.
Perhaps argumentation in social media lets people wear veils. Whether it is for the better or for worse of society is something we will continue to see unfold as we approach an era that is even more digitalized than ever before.
Given that we're living in the digital age, argumentation is clearly no longer limited to merely "verbal activity" as mentioned by Karyn Rybacki & Donald Rybacki. Rather, it expands to any reasoned attempt to process or create rational opinions to influence people on a particular point of view or idea. With the rise of social media, we have adapted unique ways to convince audiences (e.g., memes, videos, GIFs, photos, pop-culture references, threads, group forums, etc.). However, such methods come with disadvantages especially in regard to processing arguments as an "intellectual activity". As most consumers have become used to fast and short-form content, there is lesser room for long, in-depth discussions and fact-checking of sources. At times, argumentation sadly turns into cancel culture, smart shaming, or personal intrusions instead of healthy exchanges of opinions.
That's right, Jia. Cancel culture is especially rampant, and it frustrates me to think that some people's idea of argumentation is limited to that. Argumentation should not be seen as mere irrational fights that aim to cancel others. I think argumentation should be seen as the art of engaging in discussions in order to eventually come to resolutions. It is quite sad how social media argumentation has tainted and even ruined that art.
Argumentation in the context of social media is merely attacking the other party in any way that is available, be it through physical attributes or their knowledge of a topic, or the lack thereof. Engaging in arguments online is quite pointless because as the times have progressed, the way people argue have considerably regressed in the sense that systematic reasoning and logic is not even present in the context anymore. Very rarely do I see healthy and engaging argumentation online, but I guess that's just something we all have to actively work on as a society.
This is a great way to perceive argumentation in social media, Justine. Besides the points that you have already provided, I would just like to add something that would relate to your last statement. I have witnessed healthy argumentations online through a feature on Twitter where people join an open space, in which they listen/talk in a call. Maybe other social media platforms can also have this feature as it improves the authenticity of people, especially that they can verbally perceive one another's emotions and real-time reactions. I think this can be one of the ways that can help us improve as a society when engaging in argumentation online!
Argumentation in the context of social media is usually people arguing over who has the higher moral ground. This is fueled by the fact that social media has given everyone the confidence to post or say things they normally would not share in real life. Especially in social media platforms like TikTok and Twitter, it almost feels like people are waiting for you to make a wrong move or say something to “cancel” you, even if it’s over the smallest thing. Instead of creating a culture that informs and educates, this kind of argumentation only puts fear and does not change bad or uninformed behavior or actions.
I agree with you Anjelle! The confidence gained by people online is also fueled by the option to stay anonymous. Anonymity indeed provides the confidence of people to say anything, even if the information is not entirely true and/or logical.
If we will contextualize argumentation within the online world, specifically in social media, it would be what we can call "bardagulan." For most people who actively participate or act as spectators online, this term is commonly coined when two or more people engage in a discussion, which typically ends in a 'debate' because technically, these people would use sources/references to back up the information they are relaying. But, in most cases, people would still resort to unreliable and/or false information. On the other hand, credible sources are also frequently ignored.
Generally, argumentation in social media has no specific structure compared to formal argumentations, because people would just engage in such especially when the discussion is publicly accessible.
Generally, argumentation in social media has no specific structure compared to formal argumentations, because people would just engage in such especially when the discussion is publicly accessible.