Arguing on the internet is a waste of time

Not really, everything turns into an argument with Jay

Wait, stop...! *brain explodes*

Gany please don't validate StarJammer's bad posts

Didn't you see the sign?

Ignore him, Gany. He's just sayin' that cause he luvs me.

I've been gone too long to recognize the social cues.

Are you guys boyfriends?

Pretty sure that would put me in prison

He still thinks I'm 15.

Come on.

Not a chance this place is a wasteland.

If it somehow came back to life I might consider it, but I only say that because I know it won't happen.

Well if there's no activity on the forum, you'll only have to log on once a week to fulfill your duties as moderator.

More people would post out of nostalgia if you were mod too.

Here's why this argument fails:

You know I'm looking back at that graph and I'm thinking the y-intercept for Utility should actually be negative at very low numbers of users to reflect a deep sense of personal shame and humiliation.

I've always felt that debate, online or off, was an interesting and worthwhile pastime.

Unfortunately, it is hard to force strangers into accepting the somewhat rigid rules required of debate, and so everyone argues. Again, a decent enough pastime, so long as emotions are kept in check.

Both activities are often nothing more than a clash of egos, but an argument by it's nature usually precludes a winner, and doesn't require the addressing of or even consideration of, each person's position. People take away from an argument what they want, or they walk away bitter.

So yes. Arguing ANYWHERE is pointless since deciding on a winner (or winning position etc) is not strictly required. Yet even pointless things have their irrational emotional appeal.

All internet debate models are broken:

Shinra model - no moderation other than for flames and porn and stuff leads to neverending battles for the last word

Cracked model - excessive moderation leads to censorship and unproductive conversations between like-minded anal people

Maybe there's a baby bear model but honestly in the end how much do I have to gain from listening to someone on the internet. No need to fix it.

Internet debate models are indeed broken, but only because it takes an exceptional individual to moderate, with pretty much zero in the way of recourse, and a lot of butthurt participants that blame and vilify them. At least offline these moderators are paid.

Arguments can work with minor moderation, the point being only to share/scream/shout one's opinions. Sometimes participants do learn things, even if they don't admit it, but I've never seen an argument truly accomplish what the goal of most debates are: majority agreement based on factual and rational discourse. Arguments seems uglier online than off, but then again, I'm pretty sure they are. And all the interwebs speak is just maddening to read in any serious discussion.

If this were a debate, I'd crown you king. But it's not, and so I offer my agreement with the basic assumption of your argument, and walk away blissfully satisfied with a tall glass of chocolate milk, hoping for more maturity to invade the 'net.

Oh yea?! Well, I like YOUR post. So there. Beat that. Debate it. I dare you.