How would you redefine the meaning of argumentation with respect to social media?
Hello, everyone!
If I were to redefine argumentation with respect to social media, I would say that it is a form of communication that entails a communicator providing short, concise, and sufficient reasoning to prove their point while also being able to capture their audience’s attention. Attention was added to the definition because, in social media, you actually do not know whom your arguments will reach, and so these people, in order to be influenced by your message, must first be able to take the time to read your arguments. Compared to face-to-face communication, getting attention is more difficult because your audience on social media may not be intentional with their usage of the platform. In contrast, those who are face-to-face are more likely to be intentional since they went to a person to listen.
Also, attention is a critical factor in the definition because according to Raineri & Co (2022, June 20), there has been a 25% decrease in the attention span of humans in just a few years. This fact may also have been affecting how people use social media, and because of that, those will engage in argumentation must be able to engage their audiences with how they are presenting their arguments since they would not be able to influence others if their messages would be left unread. I think I am also speaking for myself here as a part of the audience since I usually scroll past through comments that are long, even if I feel engaged with the topic where it was posted, and so to counter that, I think being able to present your arguments in a concise, entertaining manner would ensure that your arguments would not fall unto deaf ears.
Changing Attention Span and What it Means for Content. (2022, June 20). Ranieri & Co. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.ranieriandco.com/post/changing-attention-span-and-what-it-means-for-content-in-2021
If I were to redefine argumentation with respect to social media, I would say that it is a form of communication that entails a communicator providing short, concise, and sufficient reasoning to prove their point while also being able to capture their audience’s attention. Attention was added to the definition because, in social media, you actually do not know whom your arguments will reach, and so these people, in order to be influenced by your message, must first be able to take the time to read your arguments. Compared to face-to-face communication, getting attention is more difficult because your audience on social media may not be intentional with their usage of the platform. In contrast, those who are face-to-face are more likely to be intentional since they went to a person to listen.
Also, attention is a critical factor in the definition because according to Raineri & Co (2022, June 20), there has been a 25% decrease in the attention span of humans in just a few years. This fact may also have been affecting how people use social media, and because of that, those will engage in argumentation must be able to engage their audiences with how they are presenting their arguments since they would not be able to influence others if their messages would be left unread. I think I am also speaking for myself here as a part of the audience since I usually scroll past through comments that are long, even if I feel engaged with the topic where it was posted, and so to counter that, I think being able to present your arguments in a concise, entertaining manner would ensure that your arguments would not fall unto deaf ears.
Changing Attention Span and What it Means for Content. (2022, June 20). Ranieri & Co. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.ranieriandco.com/post/changing-attention-span-and-what-it-means-for-content-in-2021
I agree, Kimbert! It is also good to note that, unlike the intent of traditional argumentation which is to arrive at a solution or agreement, online discussions entail the possibility of any one of the people involved choosing to leave at any point of the conversation. It also means that anyone can jump in. A great place to see argumentation online would be the KPop scene in Twitter. Say two KPop stans are arguing which between BlackPink and Twice is the best girl group and while they present proof of all the awards of the two groups, one person can just chime in and say “Red Velvet pa rin!” The informal and unstructured nature of online arguments doesn’t really make it less credible, maybe even more complicated, but just shows that it has a different objective altogether.
I agree that we should take present arguments in an entertaining manner in social media. Also, I am glad that you pointed out attention. Social media, as a platform for argumentation, makes it easier to gain attention from people. This means that more people will be engaged.
Great point, Kimbert! I agree that it is important to keep messages posted online as concise as they can be to retain attention. I too find myself skipping lengthy explanations, therefore I look forward to practicing my delivery of concise yet insightful points in this class.
I agree with you, Kimbert! I usually skip long comments even if the topic is engaging. Also, there's so much to see on social media that could easily get the attention of netizens. Therefore, I personally think that lengthy comments in online discussions would not be effective.
I agree! Different platforms have been constantly evolving to cater to this problem. For instance, Instagram added Reels to help content creators make short-form videos more engaging and direct with their target market. Twitter on the other hand added Spaces to provide people a space to engage in live on-air discussions of different topics, usually as a reaction to pop culture and media. Facebook provided users the ability to make posters when making a post instead of purely relying on text to help gain the attention of more people.
Although I’m tempted to answer the one word “bardagulan,” taking argumentation’s serious nature, it must be more proper to (re)define argumentation in the context of social media as an online exchange of ideas, concepts, and facts using persuasion techniques in order to reach a conclusion, albeit sometimes different for each party, or none at all. The only major difference of this definition from the traditional is the emphasis on the place of discussion—online.
However, giving stress to the site also creates a domino effect to the things to be considered. For instance, the technique of practicing your speech over and over may not be so applicable in social networking sites since the speed and wittiness of the answers have more weight there.
However, giving stress to the site also creates a domino effect to the things to be considered. For instance, the technique of practicing your speech over and over may not be so applicable in social networking sites since the speed and wittiness of the answers have more weight there.
"Bardagulan" is also the first thing that comes to my mind. Yet, I have the same thought that argumentation is not just verbal hostility but presenting facts to reach a solution.
I agree with your thoughts. I also thought of bardagulan at first. There is also the aspect of shorter responses that one classmate mentioned because of how social media has affected the way we communicate e.g. threads because of word or character limits.
The first thing that comes to my mind about argumentation in social media is the "online bardagulan." However, we should be reminded that argumentation is a medium of communication and not just merely verbal hostility. Furthermore, one purpose of argumentation is to provide facts and solutions. We can see this in online forums or education platforms. We can also see this in some comment sections where people were respectfully presenting facts.
I agree, Sai! I believe there is added emphasis on respect and ethical discourse when it comes to argumentation in the online setting. The availability of reliable resources online allows social media users to inform themselves of the topic and review what to share online. As social media connects us to wider audiences, it is also an added responsibility to present facts rather than engage in verbal hostility.
I feel you, Sai! When thinking about argumentation on social media, I instantly think of the word "bardagulan." Perhaps this is because of my several experiences encountering "bardagulan" in the comment sections instead of meaningful discussions. I think most Filipinos want drama and issues as we tend to be emotional. Hence, argumentations on social media are usually characterized by heated or gossipy discourses.
Truth be told, 'online bardagulan' was also the first thing that popped into my mind when I read the prompt for this forum. And yes, Sai, I agree that argumentation should not be equated to verbal hostility. I believe that if we succumb to using spiteful words and remarks during a supposed conversation, it should not be treated as argumentation as it defeats its purpose, as you mentioned, to provide facts and solutions.
Honestly, "online bardagulan" was also the first thing that came to mind when I read the discussion prompt. Perhaps, verbal hostility has become so prevalent in social media that it is the first thing that most people think of when they see the words "social media" and "argumentation." This hostility may have grown because of the anonymity that social media provides. They feel as if their words would not have repercussions no matter how bad these are. Compared to face-to-face, there's a certain level of threat that a person may feel if they use hostility.
I agree with you on this, especially on the part where you mentioned that "online bardagulan" came first on your mind. It's unfortunate how we tend to associate what could have been a healthy and insightful online discourse with a simple term as "online bardagulan". I think one reason for this is how netizens take advantage of anonymity and the online barrier when arguing online, particularly in the manner of foul word choices and unnecessary personal attacks against the person they are arguing with. And yes, I absolutely agree that most netizens do not take caution about the repercussions of their words and online behavior which is a good starting point for online hostility to become prevalent.
I agree with Sai. Argumentation in social media should provide facts and solutions, not hatred and abusive posts just because people does not side to one's views on a particular topic.
Truth! Argumentation is simply a medium of getting points across. I think social media, on "online bardagulan," fails to comply with the part of providing solutions because in most cases, it's just who is right and wrong, then who's wrong gets to deactivate their account without actually solving the original problem.
We have the same initial thoughts, Sai! I think it just shows how media has "redefined" our idea of argumentation. You are right, however, that we must be reminded how online argumentation is not just hostility but may be used for problem solving as well.
I agree with what you have emphasized here, that argumentation should not be merely verbal hostility. Sadly, this is what we can generally see among comments and content on social media, even though there are several users who still engage in a healthy discussion. It is also interesting how you mentioned that we can see formal argumentation in education platforms, which is a different channel from social media. It can be interesting to see how users can change not only their manner of communicating but also their way of argumentation depending on the platform.
I redefine argumentation in respect to social media as diligent and productive reasoning and sharing of information, all the while understanding the audience. First, it is important that those involved in argumentation are well-informed and their statements are supported by proof. Sharing reliable sources online can counteract the issue of the increase in fake news. Second, I defined argumentation as productive, to emphasize how the practice produces significant and insightful sharing of information, contrary to the "bardagulans" and heated conversations rampant online. Lastly, as different cultures and biases come together on social media, it is important to consider where each person is coming from and communicate with respect and efficiency. After all, communicators only have a few seconds to hook their audience with a statement, therefore it is best that what they share is factual, productive, and ethical.
As digital natives, we are given the chance to connect and educate to a large audience, and it is our responsibility to be well-informed (rather than all-knowing) when engaged in argumentation.
As digital natives, we are given the chance to connect and educate to a large audience, and it is our responsibility to be well-informed (rather than all-knowing) when engaged in argumentation.
Great insights, Reena. I agree with what you said, especially with your last statement. If only everyone on the internet could apply such considerations, the digital space would be a safer place for anyone. However, I would like to add that because this is mostly not the case, some netizens are afraid of sharing their thoughts online, thinking they could easily get "canceled" for whatever they post on social media. Because of the cancel culture, it seems like if their arguments are against the majority's, people will attack them negatively.
Hi, Reena. I certainly agree with your points. Argumentation should be a productive discourse, and the people involved should be able to share and exchange information without the feeling of being 'attacked' just for having conflicting ideas. As communicators and, as you said, digital natives, we should serve as role models on what and how a proper argumentation should look like and that it is built on being well-informed.
Hi Reena! I agree with your points, especially with hooking your audience through sharing factual, productive, and ethical information. I do believe that it is hard to generalize arguments in social media because user anonymity opened up an opportunity for trolls to make unhealthy discourse online.
Yes, on point, Reena! It is all about sharing the truth to as many people as we can reach, not to engage with unproductive heated war of words that are based only on emotions and what we think is "right".
People engaging in discourses on social media are often furious and care more about being on the “winning” side of the argument. Thus, oftentimes, they bluntly comment their opinions in an unstructured manner, attack the opposite side personally, and fail to offer reasons to consider that could influence the opposing side's beliefs. To exemplify, in the recent election, when BBM supporters were asked in the comment section why they supported Bongbong, instead of providing reasons, most of them attacked other candidates with degrading words. As for some of them who provided their reasons, the flow of their sentences was hard to follow and understand. From here, argumentation with respect to social media can be redefined as the process of exchanging reasons through written messages without requiring to follow a structured flow of information to convey ideas and information.
I agree with you, Pau. Frequently, netizens who argue on social media care more about winning. For instance, when someone tries to educate a person on the internet, the latter still finds ways to put up with their side because they hate losing—even to the point that their arguments are not grounded on facts or are not logical anymore. This could also result in what we know as "bardagulan" wherein netizens give ad hominem statements in their arguments.
Hi, Pauline. I just want to say; that I like how you focused your definition of argumentation on how people online structure their arguments because it is indeed true and quite saddening at the same time. As much as we want to understand their perspectives, given their unstructured and vague comments, it's challenging to do so. Given such circumstances, it's quite tricky to have a productive and healthy exchange of information between parties.
I appreciate your point, Pauline!
Engaging in discourse online is often unregulated. Sadly, plenty of boundaries are rolled over, even the simplest courtesy is ignored when emotions rise, people grapple to have their 15 seconds of fame by further igniting an argument.
Engaging in discourse online is often unregulated. Sadly, plenty of boundaries are rolled over, even the simplest courtesy is ignored when emotions rise, people grapple to have their 15 seconds of fame by further igniting an argument.
I agree with you, Pau. Argumentation in social media does not require any standard for arguments to be valid. Most contain fallacies as people resort to personally attack the other party involved. Some are even paid to post baseless arguments and false information. Various research studies and documentaries covered how troll farms infiltrate and use social media to distract people from real issues at hand. The example you provided is actually one of the manifestations on how argumentation in social media differ from the formal argumentation that we see in debates.
The meaning of argumentation with respect to social media can be redefined by looking at Filipinos' behavior on the internet. Frequently termed keyboard warriors, Filipinos would undoubtedly comment on their arguments whenever something posted on social media is against their norms, opinions, or morale. Although some netizens still systematically present their arguments on social media, oftentimes, many of them argue without grounding their statements on facts. Worse, they sometimes argue by attacking the opposing person or group on a personal level. We can see this almost every day, but this was more frequently observed during the election season (e.g., "Leni lugaw" or "Leni lutang"). Simply put, we can redefine argumentation on social media as the practice of freely expressing one's opinion, without strict rules under it, by interacting with the opposing side through written discussions to defend a particular person/group, norm, opinion, and the like.
Reading your definition makes me realize that online argumentation is heightened during the election season. I share the same experience in encountering users who engage in baseless and inappropriately combative discussions. I believe that a lesson in fallacies or a course in argumentation would make a difference for these kinds of users.
Hello Paula, what stood out the most upon reading this was how argumentation could be redefined as freely expressing one's opinion, ultimately echoing the current social media landscape. In addition, we can also see how the supposed ethical standards in argumentation were not considered anymore, resulting in personal attacks and even threats that could qualify as crimes. I would also like to mention that the freedom of expression without the responsibility that came across with it was an outcome due to the easy way of making anonymous accounts and an easy way to argue with someone who you do not interact with face-to-face.
While attending to this prompt, my process involved looking for ways to provide a good definition of something. This YouTube video listed three: use previously defined terms, should classify and quantify, and has no counterexample.
From this, argumentation in the context of social media can be defined as:
A voluntary engagement in an exchange of opposing ideas facilitated within social media platforms.
Other qualifiers I considered to add are the following: detached, anonymous, and public.
Descriptions I've omitted (and why) are the following:
Meaningful: Social media arguments can be trivial.
Planned: Some social media interactions may be spontaneous.
Structured: Social media arguments may or may not be structured, depending on what brings about the exchange of ideas (e.g. an intentional prompt vs. a political issue in the news).
Significant: In general, not all arguments have significance.
Specific to a channel: An argument on social media can exist through different channels: (e.g. text and video).
Real-time: Social media interactions are not real-time and responses can be asynchronous.
An optional criteria would be that it pursues a conclusion, whether that be agreement or disagreement.
This is a well-structured and agreeable definition, Chris. However, the voluntary engagement component of the definition prompts me to look back to some of the darkest moments of election season. It reminded me of the time when social media was weaponized during the campaign to advance a candidate’s selfish political gains. I am hardly convinced that all users, especially those maintaining anonymity, are engaging voluntarily or that they are acting based on their own free will. Nonetheless, I agree with the descriptions that you have omitted, including their corresponding justifications.
Thank you for your response, Rod. I've included the voluntary engagement component because I believe that argumentation involves dialogue. No dialogue can occur if a person chooses not to engage or respond, thus I retained that description.
That said, I appreciate your input on (shall we call it?) non-organic messages, which are often hostile and provocative, and how it is possible that not all who initiate an argument act merely upon their own personal motivations. I understand how you could have mistaken voluntary engagement for whether or not a person's intention to engage is their actual desire or if it is done for external motivations like profit or possibly even coercion.
That said, I appreciate your input on (shall we call it?) non-organic messages, which are often hostile and provocative, and how it is possible that not all who initiate an argument act merely upon their own personal motivations. I understand how you could have mistaken voluntary engagement for whether or not a person's intention to engage is their actual desire or if it is done for external motivations like profit or possibly even coercion.
Argumentation with respect to social media is one of the several consequences of posting highly debatable, polarizing, divisive, or controversial content online that motivates another user to express his/her views and opinions concerning the subject matter whether solicited or unsolicited. It is usually followed by the presentation of facts and evidence that could be categorized from highly relevant to irrelevant in the discussion of the matter at hand and highly admissible to inadmissible. Argumentation in social media also includes users’ presentation of their reasoning, or how they made sense of their cumulative pieces of evidence related to the subject. The beginning of argumentation is highly dependent on the willingness of the users (those who were alluded to the creation of the content, the creator of the content or post, or possibly some users who feels like they are highly involved or they have something to say to enrich/ diversify the discussion of the subject) to counter the presented arguments. The defining criterion that would seal the success of online argumentation is when users can come together, argue, and discuss with one another intelligibly with an open mind to extract the most logical, sound, and fact-based resolution. Many online argumentations fall short of this criteria.
Great insights, Rod. It is important as it is ethical for every user to backup their arguments with factual information. It's hard nowadays to find users who are willing to make online arguments meaningful.
I agree, Rod. Most argumentations on social media indeed fall short of that defining criterion you identified—making it difficult to see online argumentation as a collaborative process. It is also true that the willingness of users to participate in online argumentations plays a role in sparking a discussion, but this does not guarantee that the collaborative nature of argumentation will be practiced—especially with the notion that people may be more willing to speak out if they feel that the audience will support their position. What becomes more noticed is the majority opinion on social media instead of the quality of the exchange of arguments, leaving others (the “minority” or some of them) in the spiral of silence. Hence, social media may not always be the ideal site for a balanced and productive argumentation to occur.
I agree that argumentation with respect to social media tends to be divisive, especially about politics or sensitive topics. Truly, we should have an open mind when arguing or simply just interacting with people online to avoid issues and to foster a healthy discourse. Great discussion, Rod!
If I'm to redefine argumentation with respect to social media, aside from the fact that it is a form of communication between a speaker and an audience, I think argumentation is a healthy discourse of beliefs and ideals which seeks to obtain and prompt the audience’s recognition and approval.
I included ‘healthy’ in my definition because I would like to think we should exchange words and ideas respectfully and mindfully. Such a mindset should be considered or applied to any form of communication, not just argumentation. With that in mind, I believe that the inclusion of insults or other fallacies in an argument should not be considered an act of argumentation. This is something that I would like to raise for everyone in the online community. Being respectful and mindful when conversing online has become challenging nowadays. People have become so complacent with online anonymity that they forget or refuse to be mindful of their words. Common examples of misguided argumentation are fan wars or online discourse between fandoms, which can sometimes be very brutal and hurtful.
Meanwhile, I included ‘recognition and approval’ in my definition because it sums up my perception of the online world. In today’s generation, where almost everything that transpires under the sun can be seen on social media, argumentation - or the act of influencing others’ beliefs using reasoning - is difficult. In social media, a vast of information and perception is available to anyone. However, despite such luxury (for some), it all comes to naught when the audience does not approve of one’s arguments and presented information. Bringing back the example of fan wars, for people to ‘win’ such discourse, one must obtain the approval of the online community, be it through a presentation of facts, sympathy, or just our fame and presence alone (not me ha, baka po ‘yong iba). That is because being accepted or recognized by the people allows us and our opinions to be heard well online. But, of course, gathering the wrong kind of recognition could misconstrue our words and ideas. This sort of instance is inevitable in the online community.
So, as much as possible, let us be mindful of the words we type and post on our social media accounts. However, if our words still get spun out of control, let’s not engage in spite-fueled discourses (that’re way out of line) and try to use what we’ll learn about argumentation (reasoning) to our advantage.
(I'm not trying to preach or anything, may hinanakit lang po talaga ako right now sa K-Pop industry, sorry guys haha)
Great points all around, Rachel!
Mindfulness should be considered when starting or contributing to online discourse. It is often forgotten that just because you can be anonymous online does not mean there are no real people behind the screens. What good is momentary validation when you inadvertently cause more harm to another? Argumentations overall should bring about a learnable experience, not a traumatic one.
Mindfulness should be considered when starting or contributing to online discourse. It is often forgotten that just because you can be anonymous online does not mean there are no real people behind the screens. What good is momentary validation when you inadvertently cause more harm to another? Argumentations overall should bring about a learnable experience, not a traumatic one.
That is a good mindset to have, Rachel! We should indeed take advantage of social media’s interactivity to engage in healthy and productive discussions with others. I also agree that, since argumentation is a social activity, people may use argumentation to satisfy their social needs for recognition and approval. For me, the context of social media itself places pressure on other people to search for belonging in the online world which is reflected in how others argue on social media—sometimes compromising on the quality of the argument or even one’s own beliefs.
I really like how you included "healthy" in your definition. We kind of forget it nowadays; sometimes, our priority is just to "make a point" or "burn" the other party involved in the conversation. Most of the time, we let our emotions take over, which I get. I, too, lose my patience when talking with BBM fanatics. It became very difficult for me to open social media during the election season. Thanks for the reminder, Rachel!
These are great points to emphasize. Given that 'healthy' argumentation on social media is arguably difficult to achieve, it is still possible! There is just a need for us to continue engaging in productive discourse while seeking accountability in getting rid of rampant trolling backed by massive funding. In your point of 'recognition and approval', there is also a level of responsibility to echo verified information rather than just echoing popular sentiments! Trial by publicity is extremely rampant (thus the existence of cancel culture) that's why its much easier to just side with everyone else without having the necessary information available to us.
The growing user base of social media presents different opportunities for meaningful social interaction from anywhere in the world. As of January 2022, our country alone contributes to 76.01 million internet users, accounting for roughly 68% of our population, according to Digital 2022. Social media interactions can facilitate healthy discourse among different groups. However, it can also lead to the spread of disinformation and hate groups. Due to anonymity, people are more confident in sharing their feelings in comment sections of selected posts. These are especially abundant during the election period in the country, wherein several users use dummy accounts to argue for their candidates on different platforms. If I were to define the arguments made in social media as the “new forms of argument,” it would have to include meaningful discourse between actual users. Although somewhere between the lines, social media arguments still enable “interaction” and “attention-grabbing” whenever someone finds a piece of information interesting. With this in mind, I would redefine social media arguments as a new way to become sociable.
In the context of social media, argumentation is a form of instrumental communication to express one's own standpoint and to (cooperatively or competitively) exchange standpoints with others through the use of digital messages via social media platforms.
Purpose. Empirically speaking, the practice of argumentation in social media does not always serve the purpose of and succeed in influencing belief or behavior as the original definition, which we discussed in class, states. Instead, it is more common to see social media users who argue to simply express and exchange their standpoints—presenting relevant, credible, and sufficient evidence and reaching a sound conclusion are not always apparent. Virtual relationships may also pose challenges in maintaining the collaborative nature of argumentation; hence, some people argue on social media with a competitive intent and behavior.
Medium. Social media allows argumentation to be incorporated with text, images, video, audio, external links, and more formats depending on the platform. The choice of both the format and the platform adds to greater control and creativity over message creation, but also to multiple understandings of the argument—affecting the quality of the exchanging of standpoints online.
Purpose. Empirically speaking, the practice of argumentation in social media does not always serve the purpose of and succeed in influencing belief or behavior as the original definition, which we discussed in class, states. Instead, it is more common to see social media users who argue to simply express and exchange their standpoints—presenting relevant, credible, and sufficient evidence and reaching a sound conclusion are not always apparent. Virtual relationships may also pose challenges in maintaining the collaborative nature of argumentation; hence, some people argue on social media with a competitive intent and behavior.
Medium. Social media allows argumentation to be incorporated with text, images, video, audio, external links, and more formats depending on the platform. The choice of both the format and the platform adds to greater control and creativity over message creation, but also to multiple understandings of the argument—affecting the quality of the exchanging of standpoints online.
This is a great definition, Jai! Most of us here negatively defined argumentation in social media. Because of the online bardagulan culture and internet trolls, relevant, credible, and sufficient evidence became insignificant in argumentation. Instead, people attacked one another and even use false information. However, your explanation about purpose gave me a clearer perspective on why argumentation in social media reached this level of informality. The purpose of these trolls is to divert attention hence they do not need to use credible and evidence-based arguments. On the other hand, those who have the genuine intention to inform or persuade use references and lay out their arguments in a more formal and structured manner.
I loved how you structured your definition Jaira! Having the purpose of connecting people, social media is truly a platform for simply expressing one's standpoint with others. These arguments do not need to be organized or to follow certain rules. Instead, they are just aimed to express what they think about a certain topic.
Defining argumentation concerning social media can be taken in many directions. As for me, I would define it as a form of instant communication that values the influence and reputation of the communicator more than the message.
Often, when we see arguments online that have gone viral, there is always a quip toward the communicator's person than the logic of their reasoning. Even when a logical response is given, there seems to always be some accompanying dig at the person's nature or appearance.
Social media is hardly a place for proper argumentation. It has become the nature of this channel for people to have a sense of freedom in online anonymity, encouraging these netizens to ignite arguments and give their unsolicited opinions on everything, even situations that do not ask for it.
Often, when we see arguments online that have gone viral, there is always a quip toward the communicator's person than the logic of their reasoning. Even when a logical response is given, there seems to always be some accompanying dig at the person's nature or appearance.
Social media is hardly a place for proper argumentation. It has become the nature of this channel for people to have a sense of freedom in online anonymity, encouraging these netizens to ignite arguments and give their unsolicited opinions on everything, even situations that do not ask for it.
I share the same thoughts with you, Majet! Reputation and influence are two major things that instantly dictate the direction of an argument on social media. It is unfortunate how these two elements put compromise in logical reasoning and evidence-based arguments because apparently, one's image on social media is a great indicator of the fate of the argumentation. One prime example of this is how a majority of misinformed and disinformed netizens tend to follow the thought process and line of arguments of the person they "idolize" while sacrificing the accuracy in shreds of evidence and the logic behind the said arguments. Hence, I would say that the prevalence of blind idolatry in social media also plays an important factor in why reputation and influence are put on a pedestal more than the very substance of a message during an online argument.
I agree with you, Majet! Social media were once a platform for exchanging valuable information and inputs, but because of the freedom we get from the virtual space, people are getting arrogant. They reason without logic and they resort to using fallacies or insults when conversing with other people. It's really hard to argue with people like that.
I cannot agree more with the number of unsolicited opinions I have seen on social media platforms. People would rather resort to fallacies than accept that their initial knowledge is wrong or possibly outdated. Instead of giving themselves a chance to become educated, they treat the other party as their opponent rather than as a collaborator to solve conflict--losing the purpose of argumentation. Hence, I agree that social media has instead become a channel for disagreements.
I agree, Majet! More often than not, once these communicators are confronted and they run out of sensible reasons to give, they become senseless and will try to resort to ad hominem to avoid being cornered. More so, the chaotic discussion is compounded by online trolls who will just try to ignite the already burning flame. Because of this, online discussions become pointless and constructive internet conversations/argumentations are unlikely to happen.
I agree with you on this, Majet! Social media is hardly a place for proper argumentation since people use unreliable information on social media to support their arguments. Moreover, some would resort to fallacies, specifically ad hominem. Therefore, I also don't think that social media would make a great place for argumentation.
This is an interesting take, Majet! Indeed, the number of engagement in social media arguments are now more important than relying your viewpoint to the other person. People now engage in arguments for the purpose of seeking approval and hoping that people will side with you, instead of coming up with a consensus.
The world of social media has been quite a vast avenue for eliciting opinions of netizens of all sorts. Here and there, the content that we see online is always a good breeding ground for “argumentation”. Perhaps, the notion of argumentation has been redefined online as compared with the traditional understanding of argumentation. For one, arguing online is geared toward insisting on being “right over others” which often overshadows compassion and empathy online. Argumentation on social media puts a premium on exhausting all means to prove one’s point is right over someone else’s - and this often leads to resorting to directly attacking a person instead of their points or arguments. Often, most people forget that behind the screens are real human beings capable of feeling all sorts of emotions. As such, I truly believe that argumentation in terms of social media and its vast influence often misses out on the element of proper netiquette. A lack thereof puts a negative connotation on arguing online because it was now associated with the notorious and heated exchange of words, foul word choices, and even downsizing of the term “argumentation” to simply “online bardagulan”.
That is on point, Rome! Most people on the internet often forget the notion of ethics as social media promoted anonymity of its users. "Hate" accounts to anonymously target individuals are even used. This type of behavior is, perhaps, done to impose the rightness of their opinions without ethical considerations. As I recall, troll accounts attacked my friend on Twitter for feeding them factual and logical arguments. This behavior shows that the true essence of argumentation has been negatively altered by people's freedom on social media as we honor no rules.
The word "argumentation" already has a negative connotation due to social media. It was because "online bardagulan" was so normalized, as mentioned by others. However, if I were to redefine the meaning of argumentation concerning social media, I would say that it meant proving your point based on facts but should be in a way that the general audience would get your point. I believe our message should be clear and concise, whatever the medium. It's hard enough to digest the information we obtain through face-to-face interactions or hear through other media; what more if you only read it somewhere, without context or knowing the tone?
Let's make it simple. In that way, people won't misinterpret you, and they will be able to absorb the message. I believe the goal is to make the audience understand.
Let's make it simple. In that way, people won't misinterpret you, and they will be able to absorb the message. I believe the goal is to make the audience understand.
I agree and I like how you echo your points with your way of writing. What I don't like about arguments happening on social media is the apparent preference to use hard-to-digest words to prove one's point. While this achieves to show how well-versed you are with your vocabulary, it also shows how you have a tendency to shut other people out especially those who do not have the same command of the language as you do.
We share the same sentiments, Shek. The difficulty to determine the tone of a message posted online, along with the lack of nonverbal cues and behaviors, makes it more susceptible to misinterpretation. Thus, it is crucial to keep our messages clear and concise so as to effectively deliver what we want to convey. With this, we will be able to handle and resolve arguments in a healthier, more efficient manner.
Like my classmates have previously commented, social media is not overly saturated but growing as a platform—a great place for argumentation but in a different approach. As we discussed in class, argumentation is about solving conflicts with an end goal of having a resolution. However, in social media, we mostly associate arguments with bardagulan, keyboard warriors, and paid trolls spreading fake news. Therefore, for an argumentation to really take place to what we comment in social media, presenting facts (not false information), logic, and critical thinking are only few but highly important steps for us to arrive in a correct judgment. It is not all about highly opinionated, ill-mannered, and derogative messages just to win your views on a certain topic—it is more than that.
Upon reading the answers of my classmates, it is evident that social media redefined our notion of what argument is. In a formal setting, arguments are composed of clear points that build up a reasonable conclusion to support one’s claim. However, the existence of internet trolls made arguments in social media informal. These days, arguments in social media are mostly used to enrage others and draw attention away from the real issues at hand. These trolls typically create a false social media account to hide their identity and avoid detection. With this, they can freely attack anyone they want and get away with it. Arguments become irrelevant. Instead, argumentation becomes an avenue where people can attack one another and spread false information.
Argumentation with respect to social media requires a hefty amount of patience. Especially considering the amount of right-wing, political propaganda on social media, there is a need to discern the way we argue. Looking back at the previous elections, there were arguments that were liberal in nature that sought hate to the broader masses rather than effectively convincing them to rethink their decisions on who to vote for. This defeats the purpose of argumentation and only results to making hasty generalizations across social media. It defeats the convincing nature of argumentation and only benefitted the opposing side. Argumentation on social media should be viewed with the help of class analysis— that the actual people echoing ‘troll’ sentiments are victims of disinformation and that we should tirelessly persuade them through simplifying arguments and lessening the very academic tones in responding to them. It is much more beneficial on our end to think this way because it motivates us more to continue argumentation on social media when ‘troll’ sentiments take away most of our energies given their endlessly looping responses.
Social Media has really changed ever since the pandemic limited our physical interactions and thus gave more spotlight to the term online "bardagulan" and "resibo." Other than that, there is also the aspect of choosing sides: whichever argument has the most likes/heart or angry reactions could define the winner of the debate regardless of how many sources or receipts they provide to prove their point. It is also evident on how fake news has spread throughout the campaign and post-campaign season because people resonate with the false information despite the debunking. Simply put, argumentation has become not just verbal hostility but also a popularity contest on social media.
I agree with this. Sometimes, it is not about proving a point, it just becomes about the clout. Here, I feel like the main purpose of argumentation is lost. It would not longer be a two-way communication
Same thoughts, Elaine! I agree that argumentation has indeed become a popularity contest on various social media platforms to the point that some individuals share their opinions for the mere reason of gaining clout, spilling the tea, and/or becoming the talk of the town the next day. With this, argumentation tends to lose its essence.
The current trends of argumentation on social media involves the political climate as more users engage in a political discourse. Oftentimes, argumentations on social media are rhetorical yet may be both based on either facts or groundless reasoning to influence others' belief. We have seen numerous Filipinos sticking their opinions to what benefit the political party they subscribe to--hence, creating an unhealthy discourse. These arguments would turn into online bullying and harassment prompted by the active use of fallacies. Therefore, I would redefine the meaning of argumentation with respect to social media as a series of interaction to justify one's opinion, characterized by controversy, that are not necessarily done to solve a conflict of opinions. Unlike the true purpose of argumentation, social media has enabled people to partake in a verbal competition where unsound arguments are welcomed. Perhaps, it is influenced by people's liberty to post anything on social media.
Because of all of the hostility, I do agree that social media helps fuel competition in people. With every reply, it feels like people get more and more intense.
Same thoughts, Paula! As Sophia said, political topics create an unhealthy discourse. I know a lot of Doctor Jekyll who turn into Mr. Hyde the moment you mess with their political beliefs. They will transform into "monsters" behind their menacing keyboards.
True! Although I believe argumentation still persists even if it is not a series of interactions? Although that is hard to say since argumentation in socmed is informal and we cannot say if an exchange has ended/has been resolved.
Argumentation over the internet is very different. For one, people can be anonymous and hide behind their profiles. Often, it resorts to ad hominem or merely does not logically tackle the issue at hand. Because of this hostility, there is often focus on merely proving your own point and not considering the facts from the other side. With this, I would say that argumentation over social media provides more opportunity for hostility and there are times when it is simply not productive. Argumentation with internet trolls, for example would not be productive since they are set on one goal and will only say things to trigger more responses. More engagement, more pay. However, if both parties are willing to have civilized arguments, I feel like it could really help connect people from all over the world. It could be a platform for learning and sharing ideas.
I agree with you, Paula. Argumentation on social media is fueled by hostility rather than productivity. It fails to achieve the main goal of argumentation – to reach a resolution. Nevertheless, I also agree with you that argumentation on social media has the potential in offering learning opportunities to its users, as long as its users start to engage in civilized arguments.
I agree with you on this, Paula. With the rise of internet trolls, it would be unproductive to have a healthy discourse with them since they hide behind their anonymous profiles, and thus hold no accountability. This is most especially true if their job is to promote their argument whatever it takes.
In the context of social media, we can define argumentation as engaging in topics online with the intent of persuasion, usually done in a condescending way. These engagements are generally very emotionally driven and sometimes have no regard for facts.
I have observed that how people communicate on social media varies depending on which platform they air their thoughts on. For instance, arguments on Twitter usually have a more condescending tone with a preference for hard-to-understand statements that heavily rely on the complicated syntax to show dominance. On the other hand, arguments on Facebook are more barbaric and emotional that are combined with different types of threats, with the use of easy-to-understand words.
I have observed that how people communicate on social media varies depending on which platform they air their thoughts on. For instance, arguments on Twitter usually have a more condescending tone with a preference for hard-to-understand statements that heavily rely on the complicated syntax to show dominance. On the other hand, arguments on Facebook are more barbaric and emotional that are combined with different types of threats, with the use of easy-to-understand words.
If I'm being honest, one word I am reminded of is "online bardagulan" which most of us either have witnessed or even participated in. However, we could say that in comparison to the usual online discussions we see on various social media sites, there can be a lack of a process of reasoning systematically, which is a prerequisite in argumentation. While I recognize that social media provides a huge platform for discussion and sometimes even an avenue for several productive discussions, we cannot say anymore that it is an equal and free platform as originally intended. A lot of the so-called informal argumentation present in social media resulted in various problematic situations, such as cyberbullying and internet banging.
I can also say that while argumentation with respect to social media is usually observed among comments, it is also seen among content, especially among influencers who inevitably become a communicator who wants to persuade their audiences. This is even more present with cliques of influencers who are trying to showcase their argument and impose it upon others.
In a way, it may seem to be a whole different thing from the formal argumentation we have learned, but this is what can be seen with respect to the platform. Just like how we say that communication is dynamic, the same can be said for argumentation. However, one ideal hope I really have is for argumentation in social media to remain focused on its objective to express and persuade, instead of using this as a free pass to simply hate others.
I can also say that while argumentation with respect to social media is usually observed among comments, it is also seen among content, especially among influencers who inevitably become a communicator who wants to persuade their audiences. This is even more present with cliques of influencers who are trying to showcase their argument and impose it upon others.
In a way, it may seem to be a whole different thing from the formal argumentation we have learned, but this is what can be seen with respect to the platform. Just like how we say that communication is dynamic, the same can be said for argumentation. However, one ideal hope I really have is for argumentation in social media to remain focused on its objective to express and persuade, instead of using this as a free pass to simply hate others.
Same thoughts, Marielle! Despite social media being a platform that encourages online discourse, we cannot deny the occurrence of various problematic situations online. Similar to you, I can only hope that users become more objective and mindful of their arguments online.
Generally, arguments in social media can be defined as an informal exchange of ideas between users classified from the most decent to the most impertinent, that is predominantly inundated by statements ranging from validated facts to absurd opinions. These arguments that usually start between two warring individuals, commonly called "keyboard warriors", escalate and turn into a big ruckus because of uncontrollable participants who are just trying to inflame or add fuel to the already razing fire. Nonetheless, nobody really wins in this type of inutile discussion. It also usually concludes when any of the other side ceases to respond anymore.
I agree, Rachelle! It's like engaging in fist fights but instead of punches, it's replaced with words. It's also like what people say, "Matira matibay". One may assume that the other person is weak to last the "argument" if he/she "concedes". By concede, I mean, stop from responding to the other person already.
Similar to the points raised by my classmates, the first thought that comes to my mind when relating argumentation with respect to social media would relate to the concepts of "online bardagulan" and trolls. In contrast to more formal settings of argumentation (e.g., debates), argumentation on social media usually lacks structure, grounds, and other argumentation aspects that make arguments strong and valid.
Moreover, it was discussed in class that argumentation deals with solving conflicts to reach a resolution. However, argumentation on social media usually does not have a resolution nor does it depend on how "valid" a user's point is. Instead, the "winner" of an argument on social media usually just depends on how many likes or interactions that user gets on their post, which usually involves attacking people with contrasting beliefs.
After reading the points of my classmates, it can be understood that the meaning of argumentation with respect to social media has been tainted with more negative connotations. Thus, to redirect this meaning in a more positive light, I would like to define it as the act of exchanging reasons through posts that do not necessarily require the argument aspects of more formal settings of argumentation (e.g., structure, grounds, validity, etc.).
Moreover, it was discussed in class that argumentation deals with solving conflicts to reach a resolution. However, argumentation on social media usually does not have a resolution nor does it depend on how "valid" a user's point is. Instead, the "winner" of an argument on social media usually just depends on how many likes or interactions that user gets on their post, which usually involves attacking people with contrasting beliefs.
After reading the points of my classmates, it can be understood that the meaning of argumentation with respect to social media has been tainted with more negative connotations. Thus, to redirect this meaning in a more positive light, I would like to define it as the act of exchanging reasons through posts that do not necessarily require the argument aspects of more formal settings of argumentation (e.g., structure, grounds, validity, etc.).
Given the liberty that social media has in our current realities, it has become an avenue for different discourses that often lead to arguments. Usually, these are rooted in controversial takes on various issues, political beliefs and propaganda, or “unpopular opinions” that are deviant from the norm—which then fuels exchanges upon gaining engagement or traction from the public. Comments embodying ad hominem, hasty generalizations, or other fallacies are then made under the excuse of personal preference and freedom of expression. Thus, rather than having a healthy discourse on the basis of logic and reasoning, argumentation has turned into personally attacking and public shaming individuals with opposing beliefs and opinions. Unfortunately, this redefined argumentation has become too normalized to the extent that most discussions in social media are merely used to cancel individuals, to build social media clout, or to join the bandwagon, thus losing its main purpose.
I agree, Sofia! As I've also said in my reply, there is no sound and intellectual argumentations anymore. Even the educated ones engage in fallacies like ad hominem, which is a sad reality. The end result of argumentation which is to arrive into an agreement or conclusion becomes impossible because the gap between the individuals with opposing beliefs becomes even wider.
Social media has allowed the rapid dissemination of information among people with a social media account which leads them to form their own opinions on various subjects. However, not all information spread or posted in social media is verified. Consequently, they hold strong opinions on subjects based on unverified information. Having said this, I would redefine argumentation, with respect to social media, as stating opinions using logic and reasoning backed by verified facts, truths, and evidence. In today's time, it is not only enough to back opinions with pieces of evidence since there are much fabricated evidence that people easily make to support their arguments. Rather, pieces of evidence must be verified before being deemed valid.
If I were to redefine argumentation with respect to social media, it would be "the dialogic activity facilitated through digital platforms that involve the development and exchange of ideas to get the messages across". It is a dialogic activity as it involves two or more people engaging in argumentation. Unlike the end result of reaching a conclusion as discussed in class, I consider that the ultimate goal of argumentation in social media is simply getting one's messages across. As most of the previous answers said, social media has been a channel where bardagulan proliferates. Instead of having sound and intellectual discussions and coming around to resolve debatable and conflicting issues, people often participate in the exchange of flawed and erroneous ideas.
In respect to social media, argumentation can be redefined as the process of producing and exchanging reasonings to support claims, without being bounded to rule-governed communication behavior, to persuade the general public. One of the key differences of formal argumentation with the argumentation in social media is the interactive audience. It is essential that one will present his or her argument in a way that people would engage with in a positive manner. This is because people in social media have the tendency to be very sensitive and hyperfocus on specific areas of your arguments that would make them "cancellable".
Additionally, social media enables people to instantly respond and react to certain notions through comments or reactions. However, this lack of restrictions also allow people to immediately respond (for the sake of replying) without taking into consideration the viewpoint of the other person, due to its binary nature (like or dislike). This leads the audience to side too early prior to critical thinking and establishment of logical arguments.
Additionally, social media enables people to instantly respond and react to certain notions through comments or reactions. However, this lack of restrictions also allow people to immediately respond (for the sake of replying) without taking into consideration the viewpoint of the other person, due to its binary nature (like or dislike). This leads the audience to side too early prior to critical thinking and establishment of logical arguments.