Hacker News Reader

> The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by

Exactly.

Correia’s Law: "Internet arguing is a spectator sport. You argue to convince the undecided and give ammo to those on your side. Do not expect to change your opponent’s mind as you cannot sway the willfully ignorant. Internet arguing is only worth it when there is an audience. The contestants do not get a vote, the audience decides who wins."

View on HN

It's easy to see that in this case, if your audience is also willfully ignorant, you will end up in a downward spiral where you just try to destroy your opponent's credibility and reputation in a shouting match, regardless of what the factual reality is.

You may have convinced the audience, but you ended up with a solution that doesn't work and is divorced from the real world.

Is it worth it in the end?

however, there are a lot of degenerate behaviors that stem from arguing for an audience opposed to the opponent.

I dont think it is possible to have a debate in good faith without putting the opponent first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com