How can I argue without people online and not come out feeling bad?

So I'm interested in three things: Do other LWers recognize this pattern now that I have mentioned it? What decision did those that were already aware of it make, in order to optimise this activity?

...and a fanatical devotion to the Pope?

Yes, I'm aware of this and some related patterns.

A few things I have taught myself over the years (not exclusively related to this pattern) that have reduced the degree to which I feel bad in arguments, both online and off:

• I focus on understanding rather than agreement.
  That is, if I'm in an exchange with someone and I'm not sure that we understand each other's positions, we are not yet ready to argue. If they try to discuss how they're right and I'm wrong and why, my usual response is "Well, slow down. You may be right. Hell, we might even agree. Right now I'm not even sure I understand what you're saying and how it differs from what I'm saying."
  Some people get irritated by this and try to wave it away as pettifoggery, insisting that we get down to the important thing which is explaining why they are right.
  I disengage as quickly as practical from these people.

• I seek first to understand, then to be understood.
  That is, if I'm in an exchange with someone and we don't yet understand one another and we're both attempting to, my primary goal is to understand them. Usually, I find that their primary goal is to be understood, so right away we're cooperating.
  Often, I find that they have no real interest in understanding me, so I leave it at that... once I'm pretty confident that I understand their position, I articulate as clearly as I can my points of (dis)agreement with it and my reasons for same, and we're done. Sometimes I conclude that they aren't even interested in whether I agree or not, so I thank them for their time and we're done.
  Sometimes, they do seem interested in understanding me, in which case I will try to return the favor, explaining my position to them until they are confident that they understand it and can articulate their points of (dis)agreement with it and reasons for them.

• I attend to reasons for belief.
  For example, if I am defending a belief in X, and in that context I find myself arguing that Y, then I ought to consider Y, if established, a legitimate reason to believe X. If I don't, it's likely that I've switched to trying to win, and I should self-correct.

• I visibly attend to points of agreement as well as disagreement.
  If someone says "A, and B, and C, and therefore D, which because of E, gives us F" and I reply "No" I have implicitly framed our exchange as about whether or not F is true. If I reply "I agree about A, B, and C. I'm not sure D follows, though it might, and in any case D seems plausible. I don't agree about E, for this reason, and I see no reason to believe F" I have implicitly framed our exchange as quite a bit broader. Also, I've established a pattern of agreement as well as disagreement, rather than nothing but disagreement.

• I try to disengage without challenge.
  I find I'm often tempted, when I've decided to disengage from an exchange for whatever reason, to take a parting shot.
  I rarely find this valuable.
  I'm working on eliminating this tendency.

• I default to the first person. I find most exchanges go more smoothly when I talk about myself unless I have a specific reason to talk about the other person, or "most people", or "many people", or etc.

The theory behind it is that one should expose themselves to counter-arguments allowing their claims to be attacked so they that have a chance to substantiate them or reject them upon realising they are mistaken.

You should balance this theory with the fact that your time has a non-zero value. The modified theory is that one should sometimes expose themselves to high-quality counter-arguments, etc.

The modified theory does not support online discussions too much.

It may help to realize that while protecting yourself from counter-arguments is stupid, trying to do the exact opposite by exposing yourself to counter-arguments of any quality at any time is also kind of stupid. Therefore don't feel guilty if you stop doing this. If you want counter-arguments, it is enough to ask reasonable people to provide you (hyperlinks to) best counter-arguments.

Also, absence of convincing counter-arguments is evidence for your arguments, therefore focusing too much on falsifying them is irrational. (Unless the value of given information is so high that it is worth wasting so much time for such little chance of update.)

I say to myself in my mind, "nice clothes, nice clothes," alluding to belief as attire, and imagine they're wearing what most caused their statement.

For example, if someone said "Jesus never existed!" I might imagine them wearing a jacket that says "Respect me! I am sophisticated," or a hat saying "accept me, I'm a leftist just like you," or a backpack that says "I am angry at my parents."

One thing that's been a huge time-saver for me: scan the discussion first, and if someone else has already made the point you're thinking of (even if they made it badly), refrain.

Only contribute when you can be adding something to the conversation. View your part as just that, a contribution - something that you would be proud to see published somewhere "official". Imagine someone coming along and summarizing the debate for a publication.

When in doubt, disengage.

Do you mean "argue with people online"?

How can I argue without people online and not come out feeling bad?

Problem solved!

What decision did those that were already aware of it make, in order to optimise this activity?

I try to only talk to cool people. I talk to not-cool people when I think cool people might read it and be influenced. When I find cool people I'll try to talk them outside the context of LessWrong where not-cool people won't get in the way; alternatively I'll wait till a thread dies down and then reply to one of their comments to spark a discussion. "Cool" here means cool—calm—in temperament such that straw-men are less likely to get constructed and semi-insults flung, but it also means generally interesting.

It's not obvious what people do you should argue. The pattern to study some technical stuff, and questions specialists, work for settled science not for unusual topics that pop up here.

I am not including Less Wrong whose dynamic is completely different

For some LWers, the LessWrong community is far more critical than others. If you think the same, then say why. Some forums float around topics with the disagreement is more frequent, for bad reasons. Others not.

The theory behind it is that one should expose themselves to counter-arguments allowing their claims to be attacked so they that have a chance to substantiate them or reject them upon realising they are mistaken.

Expecting someone else to falsify your claims, to your satisfaction, is to not take sufficient responsibility for your own opinions.

I argue with others primarily to clarify my own thoughts by writing them down. If I see something useful in what the other guy has to say, I'll follow up on it. Or if they seem to have a clue, I'll press the issue more diligently, and pay more attention.

I don't think that people ignore "good" arguments - people just have different criteria for "good" and different motivations. Epistemic rationality is much lower on the priority list for most people than people who give a high priority to it appreciate.

And poisoning the well, claiming intentional misunderstanding, doesn't help, and I don't think it's true either - people are wholly capable of unintentionally misunderstanding without having to expend the effort to intentionally misunderstand. Never attribute to dishonesty what can be explained by stupidity, and never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by disinterest.

If you want to expose yourself to the best arguments for something, read books by their best proponents, and make the best argument you can out of what you see there. Figure out the smallest delta to reality required to make their claims true. Then check on that delta.

A friend had an online alter ego where he argued for opinions diametrically opposed to his own. If you want to improve your own arguments, spending X percent of your energy arguing from the other side.

Only argue if you think you genuinely will learn something by doing so, or unless the person is important enough ( http://xkcd.com/154/ ), and actually listening enough that this is a good use of your time.

If you don't think you'll learn anything, don't argue. Or say something like "this is wrong, maybe check out site X" and don't worry too much about it.

The above is pretty much why I don't argue politics online anymore, but it's also a good reason for people to spend some time arguing politics online.

What decision did those that were already aware of it make, in order to optimise this activity?

Acknowledge the other person - their intent, the effort they've made, and/or the things they've got right. Be sincere rather than superior. E.g. to an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist, I might say "I understand why you're suspicious of big pharma, and I know that you're concerned for the health of children. However, I believe vaccines do far more good than harm, and here's why..."

This helps take heat out of the exchange, by making it clear (on an emotional as well as intellectual level) that you aren't attacking them. If they don't feel themselves and their status under attack, and you demonstrate an interest in understanding them, people can feel more secure and be more open to understanding what you're saying.

It's not infallible of course, and it's not enough on its own. Follow some of the other good suggestions on this page, as well.

E.g. if you're making an effort and the other person is still on the attack, disengaging is wise. My preference is to briefly say why I'm disengaging, wish the other person well, quit, and stop following the thread (unsubscribe, unfollow depending on the platform)..

I suppose it depends on why you are arguing online.

If the real reason is to challenge your beliefs, you may need to ask if this is consistently happening in the communities you visit and if it isn't, you might need to find better online communities or engage in some practice other than arguing online to challenge your beliefs.

If there are other reasons that arguing online appeals to you, it would be worthwhile to identify them.

Arguing online can be relatively cheap (easy to get into many arguments with a low initial investment and a lowered chance of it affecting your world offline) way to get arguments. However, if you are concerned about the quality of the arguments you are having, it might be worth investing more time into finding good places to argue or abandon arguing online for someplace where the low-hanging fruit is a little higher quality.

Not reading other comments yet, maybe someone already said this.

What decision did those that were already aware of it make, in order to optimise this activity?

I decided to try to avoid arguments. They generally go nowhere, no one's mind is changed, and people just get mad and become less friendly. Not worth your time.

If it leaves you feeling bad, you may want to avoid arguing altogether and simply lurk. When you argue online you will not change anyone's mind with the argument, ever. All your doing is planting seeds in the minds of those following along (and on rare occasions your opponent) that may, in time, bloom into an update of beliefs. I argue online simply because I consider it fun. It is recreation. If I didn't enjoy it I probably wouldn't do it.