Live data from Hacker News

What's missing in reddit/digg: a way to see which side won an argument in discussions

news.ycombinator.com

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: What's missing in reddit/digg: a way to see which side won an argument in discussions

#21
post #9

"Winning an argument is like winning at the Special Olympics. Sure you won, but you're still retarded."

This comment is no more funny or insightful than it was 5 years ago. Worse, it discourages positive contributions as well as negative.

I think there is an inverse relationship between positive attitude and eagerness to win arguments.

Re: What's missing in reddit/digg: a way to see which side won an argument in discussions

#22
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is no more funny or insightful than it was 5 years ago. Worse, it discourages positive contributions as well as negative.

Positive contributions usually don't spark arguments. Even if they're controversial or unpopular, they tend to spark discussion instead.

I disagree, and I also think the line between argument and discussion is rather blurry; especially in text-based communication.

One of the most interesting threads I've read lately was that one where Walter Bright posted a comment about D in a thread bashing C++ programmers. His post was attacked by a few others, and the resulting argument was very interesting.

I think this is the thread: http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git/2007/9/7/257355

Though I don't have time to find the specific chain of comments.

Re: What's missing in reddit/digg: a way to see which side won an argument in discussions

#23
post #2

Easy. The losers are usually the ones who participate.

Wrong. Plus: You just participated.

Well, he's right by virtue of a tautology. Winners are the ones who participate as well. Right or not, it's an asinine comment. I've downmodded maybe 3-4 posts in the past month and this was one of them.

Re: What's missing in reddit/digg: a way to see which side won an argument in discussions

#24
post #17

It can't be done. The truth doesn't become falsehood just because it gets voted down.

No one said anything about truth or falsehood. The truth, unfortunately, does not just automatically win in an argument.

What?! Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Re: What's missing in reddit/digg: a way to see which side won an argument in discussions

#25
post #2

Easy. The losers are usually the ones who participate.

Wrong. Plus: You just participated.

You just participated.

I did not realize this was an argument. I guess I lost.

Seriously, though, the most interesting arguments don't resolve for quite some time, if ever. For example, who was the winner in the infamous Torvalds v. Tanenbaum argument over monolithic versus micro-kernels? One could say that Torvalds "won," in the sense that Linux became far more successful than Minix. Yet, Windows and Mac OS are both based, in part, on a micro-kernel architecture, and both have a greater share of the market than Linux.

Re: What's missing in reddit/digg: a way to see which side won an argument in discussions

#26
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Plus: You just participated.

You just participated. I did not realize this was an argument. I guess I lost. Seriously, though, the most interesting arguments don't resolve for quite some time, if ever. For example, who was the winner in the infamous Torvalds v. Tanenbaum argument over monolithic versus micro-kernels? One could say that Torvalds "won," in the sense that Linux became far more successful than Minix. Yet, Windows and Mac OS are both…

I'd like to see a scoring system that evaluates the discussion or thread as a whole, rather than the individual contributions; a metric like a signal-to-noise ratio, where a thread gets a higher score for being on-topic and relevant, or a lower score for degenerating into a pissing match.
Post reply on HN