Beech Tree News Network

Since the beginning of time human kind has been a part of argument.  At first the argument may have been between two cavemen discussing what shape wheel would perform the best, but now has evolved into the elaborate framing and delivery of information.  Ramage explained argument as not a fight that ends in anger, but he states that argument “is a creative and productive activity that engages us at high levels of inquiry and critical thinking, often in conversation with people we like and respect” (p.2).  Much like the way early humans would have engaged in healthy argument, so too do people of today.  However, technology advancements with the internet have changed the way we develop and deliver arguments today.  Arguments via the internet occur in chartrooms and other social networks which can cause a loss in respect between the parties involved.  Sitting down and having a casual argument over current political policies, with a current newspaper in hand, is no longer the most popular way that we participate in argument now. 

In addition to being able to access information easier, one would think that being able to prove someone else’s claim in an argument too would be an easier task.  Unfortunately, proving someone true or false in an argument has become more challenging.  This could be due in part to the lack of personal respect given during an online argument which can result in the hesitation of forming one’s own opinion, while still respecting the opinion of someone else.  According to Tom Chivers in his article, “Internet rules and laws: the top 10, from Goodwin to Poe” , Pommer’s Law states: “A person's mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be from having no opinion to having a wrong opinion” (p. 3).  The information on the internet has caused one’s opinion in argument to sway from one side to the other very easily.  One reason for this is due to the lack of personal responsibility the internet provides though its autonomy of chat room and even blogs.  Chat rooms today are available on infinite subjects from auto repair to sex.  Allowing a person to chat on one side of the argument and write something entirely different in another post.

For example, the chat discussion of Eric Benderoff’s article, “The iPhone 4’s biggest problem is not its antenna”, starts off with a user named visionz009 stating “this iphone 4 sucks, I have had it for less that 2 weeks and every call in my home dropps, I called ATT and they gave me a $25 credit, and what keeps happening my calls keep dropping, it is a good thing I can return it before the 30 days are up. I love iphones but not the problem.” This is good, a user with a legitimate problem raising a compelling argument, but the another user named “OnlyCritigue” stated, “AT&T Chief Technology Officer John Donovan said the company “will move heaven and Earth” to meet its customers’ growing data needs. Move Heaven and Earth?? What a putz. Don't be so blasphemous. I think the only movement he'll have is a bowel movement.”  This is how argument on the internet becomes more screaming than back and forth dialogue between two people.  One reason is the user names are fictional; being able the hold a real person accountable for what they said is gone.  This could even be the same person using a different name.  Another reason this argument is lost, is because of the lack of a personal response to one another.  

Along the same lines, the internet has created a lack of personal respect that was once shown in arguments of old.  Before the internet, those participating in an argument would allow points to be given back and forth with respect.  However, participating in an argument now on the internet allows the opportunity for vulgar and degrading language toward another person’s opinion.  The chat posts on Benderoff’s article provide a perfect example of the lack of respect on the use of language used to argue on the web.  For instance, user “xandris”, responded to someone by stating, “And of course. The best response you can come up with is "fanboy". Youre a loser. Get a life.”  The fact that the internet allows for autonomy gives people the notion that respect is no longer a requirement for argument.  Using such limited vocabulary in a post discredits the user and the side of the argument that they represent.  

Another part of the internet that has changed argument is the easy information accessibility that the internet provides.  Today the web can be accessed from almost everywhere; Smart phones provide instant connection to the information desired, and hotspots are available at every Starbucks and McDonalds.  When engaged in an argument today people can just assess the information to confirm their points or find information that backs up their opinion even if it is false.  As Nicholas Kristof states in his article The Daily Me, “We generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices” (p.1).  Instead of opening up to the idea of other’s opinions, the internet provides people the opportunity just to find any information to argue their own points.  For example, if someone believes in aliens, with a few pushes on the phone websites can be up confirming alien’s existence.  For instance, http://userpages.bright.net/~phobia/main.htm claims this very thing, the existence of aliens.  The website gives very compelling information as to why aliens exist, even without any scientific data to back up their claim.  Someone visiting this website with little opinion on the topic could easily be swayed without any information from the other side of the argument.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it begins to limit quality research and invests in only a one way point of view, which may very well be a false point of view. 

In conclusion, argument has always been around, but the way we argue has changed.  Not only the way we argue but the way we obtain information and how the information is presented in the argument.  As stated above the main culprit of this change in argument is technology, specifically the internet.  The internet can be a great source of information and that quantity of information can be used to benefit argument.  However, much of the information obtained from the internet is gathered just to elaborate a point, even if the information is incorrect.  When that is done knowingly, argument is affected in a negative manner, and becomes ineffective.                                   
     
Works Cited
Benderoff, Eric.  “The iPhone 4’s biggest problem is not its antenna” 13 July. 2010. Web. 13
July 2010. http://www.appolicious.com/finance/articles/2324-the-iphone-4-s-biggest-...
Chivers, Tom. “Internet rules and laws: the top 10, from Godwin to Poe.”  The Daily  Telegraph.
23 Oct. 2009. Web. 10 Apr.2010.
Kristof, Nicholas. “The Daily Me.” New York Times. 18 Mar. 2009. Web. 10 Apr. 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristof.html
Ramage, John E., John C. Bean, June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric With Reading.
New York: Pearson, 2010.
http://userpages.bright.net/~phobia/main.htm