You probably have a reasonable argument somewhere in there. Less "shouting" (use of block letters), attacking the poster (vs his argument) and empty rhetorical flourishes ("but by God almighty and all that is holy under the sun") would help the rest of us actually understand your argument.
I think the useful bits of your comment can be summed up as (your sentence) "Strong claims demand strong evidence" without all the accompanying histrionics.
Yes, you're probably right. I'm a classically trained debater, and I tend to talk and write the way I was trained.
Also I tend to post only when I'm annoyed, and I turn more into a speechmaker the more I get annoyed. It's maybe a weakness and I'll consider making a conscious effort if other people seem to agree.
EDIT: I'm going to mark this as the first time in my life that people in general disapprove of honest personal inventory. What it is that they would have rather heard (a lie?) is unclear.
I suspect you are being downvoted (I didn't downvote you fwiw) for "I'm a classically trained debater, and I tend to talk and write the way I was trained." and "It's maybe a weakness" .
The first is downright silly. Debate training helps you in a formal debate. It isn't meant to be the guide for generic speaking or writing. Do you speak at the dinner table or to friends or family "in the manner you were trained" for debate? That would lead to you being an interesting companion ;) (As an aside, whether your OP is a good example for "classical debating style" is open to question)
A debate is an artifical situation where "scoring points" with a variety of content lite tricks (e.g: attacking the person or his style, or his mannerisms vs his arguments) are valid tactical maneuvers. Scoring points is more important in a formal debate than exploring a topic or seeking nuance and truth. You see this in political debates all the time where substance is minimal, complex issues are reduced to soundbites and rhetoric and style dominate. Most normal life conversations, including internet conversations are not formal "debates". Especially here.
On HN, namecalling etc are frowned on. A sharp and insightful comment using the minimum of empty flourishes would serve you well here if you want to maximize karma reward. As a classically trained debater, you are no doubt used to changing your style to suit the audience.
As to "It is maybe a weakness", if you talk "debatese" in real life anytime someone makes an argument that annoys you , there is no "maybe" about "it is a weakness".
You also implicitly asked for people's judgement on your writing style ("I'll consider making a conscious effort if other people seem to agree").
Consider the downvotes to be feedback on your writing style and your defense of it vs "disapprove of personal inventory" (leaving aside the question of whether HN is the right forum to make personal inventory).
> A debate is an artifical situation where "scoring points" with a variety of dubious tactics e.g: attacking the person (or his style, or his mannerisms) are valid tactical maneuvers. Scoring points is more important in a formal debate than exploring a topic or seeking nuance and truth. [...] Most normal life conversations, including internet conversations are not formal "debates". Especially here.
Debate is about scoring points via dubious tactics? Says who? You? I don't mean to be a burden to talk to, but while you're presenting the noble argument that HN community is a pack of discerning, objective truth-seekers, what you've said is patently and unquestionably wrong, and if you get upvoted, then the real message that I should take away is that such dubious and pandering tactics are only acceptable in contexts where the community agrees with you a priori.
> Debate training helps you in a formal debate. It isn't meant to be the guide for generic "speaking or writing". Do you speak at the dinner table or to friends or family "in the manner you were trained" for debate?
You're wrong, and this is wrong. The point of debate is to learn to build consensus in an audience in a variety of scenarios. If you're talking at length, or writing an essay, you will change what you do to be more effective in those cases. If you are answering questions in cross examination, or shouting over someone in a crowded room, then you will again alter your presentation accordingly. And generally, if you were trained properly, then you will have developed a specific communication style for a huge swath of activities that require it.
Including conversation. Including letters. Including posts on the Internet. If I'm wrong, it's in practice, not form, and to dispute this, you have some heavy lifting to do, particularly in the first passage I note in this post. The fact that you are well-spoken and well-adjusted in the community is certainly appreciable, and while your advice is probably not completely wrong, that doesn't make you right either.
Here, I re-wrote your post to be in a normal, respectful voice. You'll notice that not only does it manage to get your point across, but people will read it without wincing and being offended:
The OP may be right, but I'm afraid they do a poor job of providing clear examples of why Amazon is really more interesting than Google. They do manage to name one, but that one turns out to not be very important.
So, what are some examples? You write, "They decide that you are an elite engineer primarily based on whether you went to an elite school." The problem is it's pretty subjective what counts as an 'elite' school. It could just mean that, on average, Google hires from more prestigious universities, but this doesn't really prove elitism since it's likely they hire folks from many other universities as well.
Here's an example of a difference between the two companies that I think does serve the OP's point: Amazon is a toolmaker. This is mentioned, but the OP fails to really explain why this property really serves to make Amazon a more interesting company.
Overall, there are some pretty broad claims about the two companies in this post, and I'm not seeing a strong argument for why we should think Google is in 'catchup' mode as the OP claims. If you're going to say something about one of the worlds most valuable companies playing catchup, you definitely need strong evidence if you expect people to agree with you.
--
No personal attacks, less words, and more impact on the mind of your reader. (I just wrote this quickly, so please excuse its lack of brevity and any other obvious mistakes!)
You: "Argument argument, if someone disagrees with how I argue, I'll listen."
Reply: "Here's why your argument style sucks."
You: "Hey, you're wrong. You're really wrong! You don't know what debates are. I'm going to talk to you like a child. By the way, you're wrong."
Yes, you certainly sound like someone interested in listening to constructive criticism. I've gotten into heated debates on HN before (with plenty of downvotes) but there is a certain level of respect people have for each other here. You sound like someone who is talking down to folks, which is an unacceptable way to argue in general, particularly when you're entering into a crowd that has made it a point to be respectful at all times. The nice thing about HN is you basically can check your ego at the door since anything you've managed to achieve in your life has surely been overshadowed by no small number of others who are reading this site.
I'm going to give you the award for least fun person on HN tonight.
You responded to an entirely reasonable, good-natured post with impressively sniveling pedantry. So rather than try too hard to be constructive, I'll give you simple but important advice. Just, you know, chill out.
I think the useful bits of your comment can be summed up as (your sentence) "Strong claims demand strong evidence" without all the accompanying histrionics.