it can lead to people forgetting that there’s a real human being, with feelings, behind the text.

Yes that’s a good warning to keep in mind. I often debate with people I know personally, so I don’t actually want to offend them – I also think it is unhelpful if you’re trying to convince someone of something to offend them. The brain can switch off and the emotions get involved.

Happens to me all the time. Annoying, isn’t it?

One of the main benefits I’ve found with online debates is that you can take time to consider your response. Normally I’ll read someone’s comment, go away and think about it for a while, and then reply. Not only does this allow me to develop my thoughts to a more coherent level, it also makes the debate less emotional, as you’re less caught up in it. Also, it allows me to phrase my comments in a non-hostile way. Offline, I tend to get a bit frustrated that I can’t articulate my position well enough to convince the other person and so end up losing my train of thought even more. I also worry that I may offend the other person by being too dismissive or aggressive and so check myself or try to backtrack when I feel I might have gone too far.

The anonymity that often attends online debates is both a blessing and a curse in my opinion – whilst encouraging a more open debate it can lead to people forgetting that there’s a real human being, with feelings, behind the text.

I suppose the in-print debate is not really novel, though. Ever since the invention of the printing press philosophers and scientists have argued back-and-forth in great diatribes of text. The difference now is that any muppet with a laptop and a phone line can insert their two cents into an online dialogue, which in some ways weakens the quality of debate, but more importantly increases one’s exposure to ideas. That, to my mind, can only be a good thing, and if the cloak of anonymity is required in order for people to expess themselves, then I’m all for it.