Rebuttals

[TK]

This is for the Neopian Times so I may end up quoting you.

What do you think about rebuttals in the Neopian Times, when someone argues against an article with another article? Do you like them or not? Any ideas on how to actually make a good rebuttal?

[Tdyans]

too_kule said:

This is for the Neopian Times so I may end up quoting you.

What do you think about rebuttals in the Neopian Times, when someone argues against an article with another article? Do you like them or not? Any ideas on how to actually make a good rebuttal?

I don't automatically lump all rebuttals into my "like" or "dislike" pile. There can be good rebuttals and bad rebuttals. If a person really believes in what they're arguing and/or is writing because they feel it needs to be said, that could have the makings of a good rebuttal. (Of course, good writing and a good argument can only make that better.) On the other hand, a bad rebuttal might result if someone is obviously writing the rebuttal for the wrong reasons-- for instance, just because they want to get into the NT by entering into a debate with a previous article-- and/or if they take the wrong tone or write in the wrong spirit--attacking the writer of the previous article rather than entering into a discussion with their article. If that's the case, the article itself probably won't be well-written or have a very convincing argument anyway.

Good idea for an article, since it's something that seems to come up here a lot.

[mushroom]

I'm not an article-writer, so my opinion's probably invalid, but I think it's one of the best ways to share and discuss ideas with all of Neopia--as long as it's a rebuttal to an idea, not an article. A lot of rebuttal articles follow another article's structure and points exactly and make counterpoints that really don't make sense unless you check back to the first article. (Some don't make sense even then.) That looks unprofessional and immature, at least to me. However, a rebuttal article that has its own structure, doesn't rely on the other article, and makes points that aren't just to counter the other article's points can be very well-done and interesting.

That's just my opinion, though...like I said before, I've never written articles before, so my opinion probably doesn't have much weight.

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

Tdyans said:

I don't automatically lump all rebuttals into my "like" or "dislike" pile. There can be good rebuttals and bad rebuttals. If a person really believes in what they're arguing and/or is writing because they feel it needs to be said, that could have the makings of a good rebuttal. (Of course, good writing and a good argument can only make that better.) On the other hand, a bad rebuttal might result if someone is obviously writing the rebuttal for the wrong reasons-- for instance, just because they want to get into the NT by entering into a debate with a previous article-- and/or if they take the wrong tone or write in the wrong spirit--attacking the writer of the previous article rather than entering into a discussion with their article. If that's the case, the article itself probably won't be well-written or have a very convincing argument anyway.

Good idea for an article, since it's something that seems to come up here a lot.

Way to go Tdyans! That is EXACTLY how I feel!

[TK]

Mushroom said:

I'm not an article-writer, so my opinion's probably invalid, but I think it's one of the best ways to share and discuss ideas with all of Neopia--as long as it's a rebuttal to an idea, not an article. A lot of rebuttal articles follow another article's structure and points exactly and make counterpoints that really don't make sense unless you check back to the first article. (Some don't make sense even then.) That looks unprofessional and immature, at least to me. However, a rebuttal article that has its own structure, doesn't rely on the other article, and makes points that aren't just to counter the other article's points can be very well-done and interesting.

That's just my opinion, though...like I said before, I've never written articles before, so my opinion probably doesn't have much weight.

Oh come on now, of course your input matters! What's your Neopets username, I'm going to quote you. I'm also quoting tdyans, that was extremely well put. A reflection of my views.

[Tdyans]

Mushroom said:

I'm not an article-writer, so my opinion's probably invalid, but I think it's one of the best ways to share and discuss ideas with all of Neopia--as long as it's a rebuttal to an idea, not an article. A lot of rebuttal articles follow another article's structure and points exactly and make counterpoints that really don't make sense unless you check back to the first article. (Some don't make sense even then.) That looks unprofessional and immature, at least to me. However, a rebuttal article that has its own structure, doesn't rely on the other article, and makes points that aren't just to counter the other article's points can be very well-done and interesting.

That's just my opinion, though...like I said before, I've never written articles before, so my opinion probably doesn't have much weight.

I think the opinion of a reader is just as important, if not more so, than that of those who write articles (although those people usually read them also. ) After all, if a reader can't understand the article, what's the point? You made some very good points.

[TK]

What is Mushroom's username?

[TK]

Tdyans said:

I think the opinion of a reader is just as important, if not more so, than that of those who write articles (although those people usually read them also.) After all, if a reader can't understand the article, what's the point? You made some very good points.

The article is written for the reader, so the reader making sense of it and enjoying it is essential. If every reader doesn't like the article, it's just a waste of time.

[Tdyans]

too_kule said:

The article is written for the reader, so the reader making sense of it and enjoying it is essential. If every reader doesn't like the article, it's just a waste of time.

Well, I don't know that *every* reader has to like the article (if it's stating an opinion/making an argument, which a rebuttal obviously will be doing, there will probably be some people who disagree.) But yeah, other than that little bit of wording, I agree with you. Of course, even if they disagree with it, they can still appreciate the writing and listen to the argument, which is probably what you're aiming for...

I'm not *certain* about this, but I think one of Mushroom's usernames is bored_dot_com... I'm not sure, though, like I said, and that might not be the one she'd want you to quote her by anyway, so you should definitely hear it from her.

[TK]

I just mean that if nobody likes the article it's a waste. There are people who don't like my stuff, but I write it for the people who do.

[TK]

I think that's good enough. I'd like to thank those who participated, thanks!

Feel free to keep on posting your thoughts about rebuttals here. It may not get in the times, but I sure would like to hear your opinion.

[mushroom]

Oh, sorry; I got a bit sidetracked on something else. My main account has recently become 'kittykmae'.

[sara]

Tdyans said:

Good idea for an article, since it's something that seems to come up here a lot.

There is something of an article on it already - hence www.neopets.com/newnt/index.phtml?section=8228&week=66
Maybe it's not what you were thinking of, but it's a good article regarless

Earlier I think I asked what the difference between a rebuttal and a responce. By now I think I've made my own definition where a rebuttal is where you are defending a concept completely or almost completely against that of the original article. A response is not necessarily disagreeing with the main theme of the oringinal article (though there will probably be differences on fine points) but just putting a new slant on an issue.

According to my definition, my latest article was a responce, where what I was basically tryintg to ask what exactly about chatspeak is annoying (I gave a theory, but I don't believe it's the whole truth). However I was very careful that my article remained pure, I even didn't mention the other articles on chatspeak for reasons mentioned in the above article.

However, while there may be good rebuttals, it is definitely difficult, usually not called for, and therefore it's rare. If you are going head-on-head with another article's view it's difficult to make a good, solid case, especially if the other article was well done, However if the original article was crap, it would of coures be that much easier to write a good rebuttal. Also when you are going against that radically against another article it's difficult to keep an appropriate tone (especially if it was junk - you may get something of a superior/snobbish attitude).

In short, don't write a rebuttal/responce because you want to get published or to oppose the original article, but because you feel a need for something to be said on an issue. If it just happens to be a rebuttal, so be it.

[karmaleafbarer]

I think, much like the blatant ripoffs of popular movies/shows/skits in the stories and comics sections, the rebuttals are a waste of space in the Times because they rarely offer anything useful. The entire article clearly is written in a fit of anger or frustration and it spends its entire time, not proving any valid points, but making it clear that the person they are rebuttaling against is *WRONG*.

That's what it comes down to., the wrongness and the attempt to get on a soapbox and publically embarrass the other person.....the point of their article isn't to say "these facts are wrong and I can prove why". The point is to say "THIS PERSON IS A ST00PIDHEAD AND DO NOT LISSEN TO THEM....by the way here are some half-butted points I can make to prove it that don't really prove anything but THEY ARE STILL TEH STUPID SO LETS ALL HATE THEM!!!!"

This is not to say I've not read a couple of intelligent or funny rebuttals that were done clearly as a playful poke at the other person, but they are a couple of diamonds floating in a sea of crap. By and large, the rebuttals in the Times are a heap of steaming dung and I treat them as such by keeping a healthy distance from them.

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

Karmaleafbarer said:

I think, much like the blatant ripoffs of popular movies/shows/skits in the stories and comics sections, the rebuttals are a waste of space in the Times because they rarely offer anything useful. The entire article clearly is written in a fit of anger or frustration and it spends its entire time, not proving any valid points, but making it clear that the person they are rebuttaling against is *WRONG*.

That's what it comes down to., the wrongness and the attempt to get on a soapbox and publically embarrass the other person.....the point of their article isn't to say "these facts are wrong and I can prove why". The point is to say "THIS PERSON IS A ST00PIDHEAD AND DO NOT LISSEN TO THEM....by the way here are some half-butted points I can make to prove it that don't really prove anything but THEY ARE STILL TEH STUPID SO LETS ALL HATE THEM!!!!"

This is not to say I've not read a couple of intelligent or funny rebuttals that were done clearly as a playful poke at the other person, but they are a couple of diamonds floating in a sea of crap. By and large, the rebuttals in the Times are a heap of steaming dung and I treat them as such by keeping a healthy distance from them.

Woah. . . that's harsh. I have seen two rebuttlal articles that deserve that, but for the spirit of what I hate about them I won't list their names. Most rebuttals aren't THAT bad, though. . .
I think the main thing is that the rebuttal be arguing against the MESSAGE of the previous article rather than the article itself or its author.