While it might not be directed at me your, hypothesis would apply to me since I was having an argument over the internet wouldn't it?
Now if the key to resolving any online argument is understanding, then the reason for the argument must be at least in part because of a lack of understanding, as there would be no argument with more understanding.
Now if this were true and I was arguing over the internet, this would have to mean that after this time, I'm still lacking in understanding of what's going on, that I am either incapable, or unwilling to understand.
If you are willing to understand (that is, you put effort into understanding), and if you are capable of understanding (which you surely are, because I don't presently have grounds to doubt your intelligence), then if you still don't understand another's point or message -- even after requests for clarification, troubleshooting miscommunications, etc. -- then you'd have grounds to suspect that the opposing party is at fault. Perhaps they lack the ability to clearly communicate their points. Perhaps they are being dishonest. And so on.
Myself, I seek to give the benefit of the doubt in my approach. Asking questions and prompting elaboration, asking the other party whether I understand the idea on
their terms, etc. Unless the party is being blatantly uncharitable/dishonest/etc., then suspecting they're the problem is the last step I would come to. I would suspect my own faculties are at fault before suspecting the other's.
I suppose, then, that it's a question of how much effort one is willing to put in. Since textual communication can easily be prey to miscommunication and misinterpretation (due to lack of non-verbal and voice cues), I seek to do the extra work to minimize the risk of these things, since I value their prevention. It serves no one if people talk past each other, engage in inadvertent straw-manning, etc. If you were to state that you were having trouble understanding
my points, then I would work with you until an understanding is achieved.
That's what I'm about, I suppose you could say. One can post how they choose, naturally, though it is my view that this approach I propose has better chances of yielding fruitful results, at least to the extent that it can help reduce things that can cloud debate (since playing nice with others doesn't guarantee that you're going to be an effective debater). It works for me, anyway. Maybe it might work for others. It's a suggestion for those who care to take it up, and nothing more.
If you, Braydon, say you don't understand something, I won't declare that you're dumb or being obtuse or whatever. I'll just take your word that you don't (yet) understand. There are no negative connotations to not being able to grasp something, especially if you've at least put effort into trying. Perhaps I go about this the wrong way, but I think debate should have a cooperative spirit, rather than an adversarial one. We're all trying to help each other out, in the end (or so it goes in my daydreams).
I'm rambling, now. In any case, hopefully the above covers your concerns (and if not, by all means ask for clarification).
