Friday, August 24, 2012

Twitter Debates Useless

My other Twitter account @rationallyfaith (should've been rationallyfaithful but twitter has character limits so the "ful" got left out) sends out my tweets and links to both blogs:  this one and the one.

Atheists and others reply to those tweets expecting a response back.  I have to use my Sacerdotus twitter to check if @rationallyfaith was mentioned.  Anyhow, some Atheists reply to my tweets saying that they prefer to debate on Twitter instead of on the blog link.

Debating on Twitter is a big no-no and here's why:

  • Twitter was created for people to post short status updates.  We all know how addictive Myspace and Facebook are, especially with the ability to post "status" updates.  "I am here"  "I am there "I am eating this"  "I am eating that"  "This guy/girl likes me"  "I can't stand this guy/girl" - we all know and have had our "walls" flooded with these kinds of updates and possibly others that are more annoying.  Twitter is clear about why it exists.  See:
  • That being said, one cannot have a serious "debate" or "discussion" using status updates.  Twitter allows only 140 characters per tweet.  Moreover, they allow the following: 

Current Twitter limits
The current technical limits for accounts are:
  • Do the math.  1,000 tweets per day at 140 characters = 140,000 characters if one uses all 1,000 tweets.  This is not enough to debate seriously and definitely not enough to debate more than one tweeter simultaneously.  I personally can talk and write for hours without break, so this will not work for me.  
  • Due to these limitations, one cannot be clear nor concise because one has to constantly edit a tweet in order for it to make sense while at the same time keeping it within the 140 character count.  Most equations used in Physics won't fit in 10 tweets!  Most Bible verses won't fit in 10 tweets!  Even most quotes are more than 140 characters!  
  • Confusion develops as others join in the discussion.  No one knows who sent what.  No one knows who is directing a tweet at who.  The whole thing can become a sloppy mess of incoherent text.  
  • There is also the bullying factor.  I've noticed that my opponents "retweet" my tweets in order to get others to join in.  They somehow feel the need to get "back up" and resort to this cowardice behavior.  This is usually done when I am presenting points and they do not answer them.  In a debate, one cannot leave the stage to get a crowd to help out.    
  • Tweets can be deleted by the user or by Twitter servers after a long while.  This allows for backpedaling and denial if an opponent made an error and wants to "delete" it.  
  • Blogs are much better.  They are static, allow more characters and the ability to provide links.  One cannot backpedal on it because whatever is posted will remain there for all to see.

Therefore, it is more logical to use a blog to debate.  Anyone who prefers using Twitter is foolish and only wishes to do so because it provides a safe haven.  


  1. I like debating right to life issues PRECISELY because of the limitations. It gets right to the point. For longer responses, I use blogposts then tweet the link to the user. I have a set of standard blogposts that I use so I don't keep having to post the same thing over and over. I also find that it helps inform bystanders.

    1. I have tried with our Twitter friend connor to quote from texts that eventually "don't fit." He in turn twists the words around and comes to his own conclusion. At least here, the post will stay here for however long blogspot exists. The keywords also appear on google search and bring non-twitter users here to read.


Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.


Catholic Church (791) God (410) Jesus (351) Atheism (344) Bible (323) Jesus Christ (289) Pope Francis (237) Atheist (229) Liturgy of the Word (198) Science (157) LGBT (147) Christianity (139) Gay (82) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Abortion (76) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Liturgy (56) Physics (53) Philosophy (52) Vatican (51) Christian (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (48) Christmas (43) New York City (43) Psychology (43) Holy Eucharist (38) Women (35) Politics (34) Biology (32) Baseball (31) Supreme Court (31) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Health (24) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Space (23) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Theology (21) Evil (20) First Amendment (20) Apologetics (19) Death (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Astrophysics (18) Christ (18) Evangelization (18) Child Abuse (17) Donald Trump (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Priesthood (17) Pro Choice (17) Police (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Cognitive Psychology (9) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) Holy Trinity (9) academia (9) CUNY (8) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Hispanics (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Founding Fathers (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)