Have you ever gotten into an argument over the Internet before? Nick Bilton has, writing an article claiming that social media arguments are pointless, as for it only raises chaos, not resolving anything. Personally, I get into fights through social media all the time, because the satisfaction of victory completes me. I think everyone wants to win, but not everyone places that as their top priority, but I do. Usually when someone disagrees with me, that is completely respectable, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is why I don't fight unless the other party instigates the argument, and when that happens, I go off on them because it isn't right to fight, so I'll try and prove my point the best I can. I disagree with his argument that wars online can't be one, because I've won them countless of times, but his argument is still effective nonetheless. I believe many people have gotten in quarrels online, as for I've experienced them as well. Some are won, some are lost, but in the end, both parties have either learned a valuable lesson, or they stick to their beliefs. Either way, the disputes are something to be learned from.
     Bilton uses many rhetorical devices, such as metaphors and irony. For example, Bilton states, "But being a battleship for most people is really difficult" as a clear indication of a metaphor as for the battleship is a comparison from the base of the heated arguments that occur online. People getting angry from messages online are like 'spitballs on a battleship' (as someone from the New York Times stated), which is a justification that heated arguments are the same as fighting on a battleship. At that point things get extremely tense in the atmosphere and it's a life or death situation. Using this metaphor, Bilton distinctively uncovers that clashes online and in reality are dark stages of life that only brings out one's true monster, only to bring one into the brink of frustration. An example of irony would be when Bilton says, "I know, how could I be so stupid?" when he mentions that he got into an argument on Twitter about Trayvon Martin. The irony is present when the author of this article reflects the insolence back on himself and calls himself the clueless person when this article is meant to inform us about the consequences of fighting. This, in return, lessens Bilton's credibility, which leads us to be indecisive on whether or not to trust his words. However, others may think that this is an excellent incorportation of humor and irony that they'd trust what he says and thus, get persuaded easily. Bilton took the gamble and went with this method, which is truly effective, since it made me enjoy the article as for it was enjoying to read about his rollercoaster of the events mentioned. His use of irony helped his argument in the manner that it increased his credibility (ethos) in order to persuade us that Internet arguments are 'stupid' of someone to create, and that they should not be instigated in the first place.