StarDestroyer.Net BBS

People get accused for the 'style over substance' fallacy here quite often. Now, I've read some samples of Darkstar's posts, which looks to be on the restrained side on the politeness scale and can be described as 'with flair' in the style department, but with substance that is apparently enough to make everyone bald from pulling out their hair I can see how bad that can be

It's also an observable truth that good substance can take the ride with horrible insults in the same post...

It's also true that if you had to choose ONE and only ONE of these attributes to put in a posts one would be wise to choose substance...

However many people here seem to think that manners don't matter at all when you have the right answer--they can beat somebody over the head until the other side cries surrender, or else.

Then they seem to be surprised when the other side does not yield, but instead starts insulting them right back, saying they must not have a good argument if they have to resort to this sort of thing, etc.

The last sentence as it stands is false, of course, but a variant of it holds true: you don't NEED to resort to this sort of thing if truth is on your side. In fact I would think it is common knowledge that when you get the person debating with you all riled up, he will no longer see reason.

Also, although it has been demonstrated that manners and substance need to go with each other, nor take leave at the same time, people nevertheless often associate them together, and with good reason--good debaters TEND not to resort to insults, bad debaters tend to have bad style too.

Why undermine the utility of the substance in your posts with bad style?

edit 1: grammar

Oh, forgot to add:
"If you can't make an argument without resorting to insults, it shows your mental capacity [is low]" (or something like that)

Is that wrong? I would argue that it is not. For one thing, that sentence doesn't say WHAT capacity is low--it could be simply referring to your capacity for politeness.

Can people make judgments on you based on the style of your posts? Yes. They may not be allowed to conclude that you're stupid, but they are allowed to conclude that you are a nasty person online.

The problem starts with the 'wall of ignoranceTM.When one does not want to admit he/she is wrong, a little force is required to help them see the light. This does not always work and in fact it can be abused, but talking to a brick wall is annoying and tempers flare.

Substance is the most important, of course, but good style can help improve the "impact" of your argument.