Experiencing an internet argument

Arguing on the internet is fun, for a variety of reasons. Who wouldn't love to systematically dismantle someone else's ideas and exploiting loopholes in their logic at the same time. While engaged in such a noble deed, however, you tend to notice some of the finer aspects of pleasant internet discourse.

For one, you'll see all extremes of grammar. People correcting each other for incorrectly using "your" and "you're" is a common sight. These are also the people who think arguments can only be carried out when you have your pocket thesaurus by your side. Needless to say, whatever they say is lost between four layers of SAT words that their tutor made them memorise. I know you don't get many opportunities to use them but covering for your logical fallacies with these isn't going to work, mate.

Even thesaurus abusers are preferable to people on the other side of the grammar spectrum. These argumentative people are characterised by their complete lack of coherence. Some of the things they write make you wonder how one could come up with sentences so…unique. My educated guess is that they're cleaning their keyboard, so are in no control of the masterpieces onscreen.

Poorly structured sentences are just the tip of the iceberg. More glaring errors include complete lack of punctuation, when all their sentences mesh into one another to make the one sentence to rule them all. This one sentence is so messed up and difficult to interpret that it's guaranteed to end all arguments, immediately. Simply because no one has the heart to decipher whatever meaning that sentence was meant to convey. Bonus points to the participants in the argument if they also add some flair into their typing. For instance, capitalising random letters. Because who doesn't want to have SuMoN tell you why you're wrong.

Poorly executed language is entertaining, but it's just one part of the experience. You see, internet arguments are completely pointless. No matter how well you school someone, at the end of the day you can't change their opinions. But people still try; which is why outsiders get some top-quality entertainment. At this point it may be necessary to categorise the types of involuntary entertainers you'll see.

Seeing is believing: Any person who asks for references online but doesn't intend to trust said references falls under this category. Whatever facts you reference to back up your argument, even if they're from scientific studies, will be rejected. It doesn't matter how trustworthy the source of the data is. They might claim it's "fake news" because it doesn't support their biased world view. That's the best-case scenario. Worst case scenario is when they don't even bother making an excuse, and state point-blank that you and your facts are wrong and that only they are correct. At one point it starts to feel like trying to argue against a wall. Hell, even a wall would be more receptive to being proven wrong.

Overly gullible: Sometimes there are sources on the internet which lack in the credibility department. Not that you'd notice if you were an overly gullible. These people are the antithesis of the previous type, because they will gobble up just about any information they come across. Even memes aren't spared, as they fail to notice the iFunny watermark under cringeworthy posts and believe them to be true—horrifying but hilarious at the same time.

Mr. and Mrs. Subjective: Arguments about facts can usually be resolved. That is, if there is a correct answer. When the topic of the argument is something subjective, however, it's not likely that there will be a clear-cut answer. This is the case when you discuss topics like morality or humour. Mr. and Mrs. Subjective do not conform to this view. They believe such topics are black and white, with them always in the white. If your view differs slightly from theirs, you are in the black and a garbage person. They will also make use of their colourful vocabulary to make sure you are aware of that fact. If you try to explain to them that things are subjective and can be any shade of grey, you will be reported for hate speech. Yes, suggesting someone is wrong is hate speech.

The trolls: These contributors need no introduction. We've all seen them, as they hang out well-constructed bait to get the masses into a frenzy. Oftentimes they'll pretend to be dumb to trigger people even more, at other times they will simply respond with images and reaction gifs. Trolls are the pinnacle of the internet argument experience, and witnessing a first-class troll is sure to make anyone's day. Just don't report them too. Please.

That is a brief introduction on what makes internet arguments so special. I hope this taught you something important, because the main takeaway from all this is that internet arguments are a waste of time. Nothing productive can come of this. Please, for the love of God, go outside and enjoying life instead of cussing out strangers on your phone

With a heart of ash and a PC of potato, Wasique Hasan could use some help. Send help: facebook.com/hasique.wasan