What does a discussion sound like that is a mix of strong agreement and strong disagreement? Are there differences in how this plays out online, as compared to how it plays out in person?
In person you get facial expressions and tonal inflection. Finding the proper written words to convey intent and tone is nearly impossible. That's why I try to not take offense to anything that's said in writing...intent is often hard to decipher, especially with contentious subjects. I sometimes refrain from responding to forum posts (here and elsewhere) because I am concerned over how my words will be interpreted...meaning there will be an unintended negative intent applied.
Those are good points, but on the other hand, in person, we sometimes say the wrong things because we don't have time to carefully consider our words, as we do online. Yet, it seems true that anger is more likely to erupt in an online conversation than in person. Perhaps, another consideration there is that people tend to be braver online than in person.
In person there's the immediate feedback even before we've finished speaking. Then we can explain and clarify. I know that when I'm writing something addressed to another party(ies), whether it's a forum reply or a user manual or a letter, I do much better if I can walk away from it or even let it sit overnight. There are times I've completely rewritten something because the word choices seem to be so horribly wrong when reviewed with a fresh perspective. It's not often I take the time to do that with a forum post. I imagine there are some internet commandos that would speak to people online in ways they would never do in person. Maybe that's another reason I don't take too much to heart. I'm kind of the opposite. I won't take aim at someone in any scenario unless I'm certain it's justified, and I lack that assurance when it's solely based on how I perceive the written intent...unless it's so blunt as to leave no doubt. But even then, why start a poop-flinging fight when you can only cast caca, then sit & seethe waiting on a reply? I think things erupt more quickly online because there is so much intent that cannot be conveyed, it leaves it up to the reader to set the tone in their own minds. The relationship history we have with each other is certainly a factor regardless of the in-person/online nature of the interaction, but I really believe the lack of personal immediate interaction/feedback means the online stuff can get out of hand faster. I can see some people (universally on the web, not just here) immediately start typing a reply and get themselves more foamy-mouthed in the process. At least an angry conversation has a cathartic component. This online grenade-lobbing and then waiting for the enemy to react is self-escalating and inflames angst. Rage cannot be expunged merely by banging harder on the keyboard.
I have always held words in great regard, even to the point where I am pretty sure that if someone had the right words, and the ability to use them effectively, they could persuade nearly everyone of almost anything. I don't claim to be an expert with words, but I have always enjoyed wordplay. I try not to do that here, but I have often tried to convince someone of something that I hadn't signed onto myself just to see if I could do it without resorting to lies. In college, I enjoyed assignments where we were assigned a position to argue because, not only was it fun, but it was a great exercise in examining other positions. Online, and sometimes in person, it's easy for someone to view verbal arguments as fights, and sometimes it's the bystanders who get upset. Another detriment to textual communication is that, without the benefit of body language, it's hard to tell if the other person is arguing for the fun of arguing or is serious about needing everyone to come over to his side of the argument. For me, at least, because I feel silly using emoticons, I am sometimes taken seriously when I thought it was clear that I was joking. On forums, such as this, where most of us don't know one another personally, it's hard to tell when someone is capable of taking a joke, or willing to participate. Verbal banter might be seen as an attack.