Now, there's obviously nothing wrong with arguing to defend a show that like. I do it all the time. It's just a question of where your reasoning to argue on a show's behalf is coming from. I (sometimes) used to argue because I felt the need for other's to see what I could to see, so that we could reach a consensus where my (correct) opinion would triumph. That's rarely a good reason to do anything, especially online where eventually you must come to realise that you can't magically change people's mind about a reaction they've had to a piece of art. That's futile and foolish.
Once you've been around the block enough times and argued in enough circles you should have picked up on something (which for many people is obvious) - everyone has their own reactions and their own opinions about a piece of art and that's fine. We won't all agree - but that's cool. I enjoy reading and considering the wide variety of reactions people have to an anime. It's interesting to observe the diversity.
So, what do I consider a healthier way to behave? Well, if you're looking to explain the reasons why you think a show succeeded (or failed) and you're willing and able to engage in a dialogue with people who agree (and disagree) with your reasons, that's fine.
For example, I don't share hosanna's opinion of the latter-half of Gundam Build Fighters. I really loved that entire series all the way through. In general, however, I can't say that his criticisms are somehow 'wrong'. He made a lot of good points. The things that bothered him didn't bother me - and that's fine. I'm not going to go through his review, point by point and try to 'rebut' his critique because that's not going to change his mind and bring him around to my view. That's now how people are.
Now, saying that, if someone makes an argument that I don't think is fair, well reasoned, or supported by the text I might look to take that apart. But that's a very different thing entirely.
) but none highlighting that effect. So glad there's a second cour for this.
