It is funny that the Internet, which was created as a means to spread knowledge across long distances quickly and efficiently, has led to this major communication breakdown.

Anyone who has participated in arguments on a message board on topics as banal as “is soda a better word than pop” — the answer is pop by the way — or read the insightful comments on YouTube videos knows that the Internet has evolved to have a set of rules which can be observed in nearly any argument.

The first rule of Internet argumentation is isolation with connection. It is vital for the e-debater to only read and use sources that support his or her viewpoint.

This is the opposite of actual debate, where researching and disproving the opposition’s idea is encouraged in order to strengthen or modify one’s own views.

The second rule of Internet debate is to be loud. Really loud. ALL CAPS LOUD. Being loud in Internet debate shows the person with whom you are debating that you are angry and will not only personally ignore their viewpoints, but will do your best to make sure nobody else hears you, either.

Again, this rule runs contrary to actual debate where it is important that many people hear the other side, so when you attempt to disprove them, everyone is on the same page.

The third Internet argumentation rule is to ignore evidence contrary to your opinion while simultaneously using claims built on a shaky-at-best foundation. If one follows the previously stated rules, this should be easy. Ignoring contrary evidence while yelling yours louder, even after being proven wrong, ensures that your viewpoints will spread.

It is OK if these rules, which actually lead to the loss of debate, are contained to the Internet. However, they increasingly have shown up in politics.

It is incorrect to call the current discourse on whether or not we should have national health care reform a “debate.” The word “debate” implies a set of rules based on logic and reason.

What we now have is a national shouting match riddled with misconceptions. Misconceptions that people refuse to let go of despite evidence which proves them wrong.

The United States is in dire need of a healthy debate through which a consensus can be reached. This debate needs to be evidence-based, instead of being fueled by rage or contempt for the other side.

In some ways, the Internet and media machines serve as echo chambers for misinformation or sensationalized events.

The final rule of Internet arguing: exaggerate. The more outlandish the claim, the better. Claiming health care reform will directly lead to “death panels” is ridiculous and an insult to the intelligence of all Americans.

As Americans, we should demand facts from all politicians, be they Democrat, Republican or other. We must not allow the solutions to the most significant problems of our day to be delayed because someone has a fringe view about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate or former President George W. Bush having planned the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It is vital to the future of this nation that we use facts and debate, not loud yelling of baseless claims, to guide our policy-making. Referring on the latter not only hurts the final policy made, but also slows us down from solving more problems.

Justin Covington is a State News guest columnist and a political science and journalism junior. Reach him at coving27@msu.edu.