Because arguing points based on who can have the biggest temper tantrum and scream the most slurs is something most are proud to have grown out of around middle school.

This applies especially to important and complicated subjects that affect many people (the type often discussed on HN) which demand reasoned thought for coming up with good responses.

If you want to argue in bad faith, use logical fallacies and hysterically scream at opposing ideas rather than use rationality and reason then what's wrong with reddit or twitter?

Getting angry in a debate is usually a public show where the person is betting on having a better position. If you are angry and wrong, you appear as a fool. If you are angry, but able to keep composure and your arguments are sound, you've demolished your counterparty. Not that you should, or that it comes with any merit to society, but it certainly is entertaining to watch.

That is just one way people irrationally evaluate people. Why should angry guy be more convincing that non angry person?

That is exactly the opposite of what I said.

On one hand I agree with you. On the other, if you ever argued with autistic person, they are super emotional actually. They however cant recognize own emotions and dont interpret other people emotions.

But, they get super angry and are affected by own anger a lot. They also act irrationally due to own emotions. I mean, some can go into outrage over very minor things.

Do you think that people with autism don't have emotions? I'm trying to understand your comment but I'm having a hard time coming up with a generous interpretation.

My son has mild Asperger syndrome. He has emotions, but I've never seen anyone better at keeping a debate grounded in reason.

To an emotional person, he could seem vexingly detached and flat. To my way of thinking, he's just masterful at keeping the discussion on track.

Just to clarify, here's a little more detail about what he's like during a friendly debate (usually with family members):

- He doesn't lose track of the underlying logic, despite any emotionalism that the other party might be exhibiting.

- He doesn't get flustered nearly as quickly as most of his opponents.

- He has more endurance for the debate than most of his opponents do. Usually he's willing to keep on banging away at the argument long after his opponent has lost the will to debate. (No idea if this is a common trait for people with Asperger syndrome, or just something unique to him as an individual.)

Also, I think there are two versions of "flat" speech in this context:

(1) Simply not getting worked up to the same extent as the other person in the debate, like I describe above. I imagine this is what the ancestor comment was referring to.

(2) Speaking with abnormally small variations in tone, volume, and cadence. I.e., what some people refer to "robotic" speech. I think some people associate this with Asperger syndrome.

Interestingly, although my son is shows more telltale Asperger signs than I do, I'm more prone to "flat" speech. Especially when I'm tired, and doubly so if I'm on Adderall.

> The article reads like you took every smartass redditor on the planet and condensed them down into an article. Why can I not express emotions in an argument, or why do I need to be 'rational', or why can I not be subjective? I don't mean this in an offensive way but why is everyone who argues supposed to pretend they're autistic, because that's honestly how this piece comes across.

The author never says you have to do any of those things. Just that if you want to argue constructively, then maybe being expressing a lot of hostility, irrationality, and subjectivity isn't the best way to do it.

I've had just as many constructive arguments that were angry, or subjective or whatever else. Hunter S. Thompson wasn't objective, but he was more insightful and sharper and commited to truth than most writers of the time. MLK didn't pull up an excel sheet when he advocated for a cause. Argumentation isn't just about facts, it's about expressing a state of mind and communicating authentically what one thinks, and if someone's angry then they ought to communicate it and I ought to be able to take it, they don't need to pretend to be Spok or something, I don't see the value in that.

I'm not even sure there's an objective definition of what a 'constructive argument' is. You can have an argument to settle a conflict, understand someone better, find an answer to some question, express emotions, demand justice or a hundred other things, a lot of which don't require anything on that list.

I think the author means 1 v 1 arguments where both participants are active and opposed. Your classic in person or internet argument.

Your definition of an argument is much broader and probably encompasses all of what I would call persuasion. From reading the article I never got the impression he was suggesting this is how you persuade a large group of people to act. If you are arguing with your uncle at Thanksgiving about politics and want it to be productive this guide might help. I think we can both agree if you're trying to convince a bunch of center left / left friends who mostly agree with you to take the day off and protest. This guide probably won't.

Did you come to a different understanding after reading the article?

You can do these things, but the communication would be harder. Because it's difficult to convey subjectivity. But it's easier to convey objectivity. Rationality is the language we have for that.

If you wish to convey your subjectivity, I think art would be a better venue than debate.