Computer-supported collaborative argumentation is an online activity that can engage students in deep discussion and analysis of complex problems. Given the potentially confrontational nature of argumentation, using polite language becomes a strategic approach to prevent breakdowns in group communication and nurture productive dialogues. This study aims to understand how politeness and argumentation moves influence subsequent conversation dynamics in online debates. Student postings in threaded discussions (from 20 online debates containing 2,008 messages posted by students across five semesters of a graduate-level course on distance education) were coded and scored on politeness and impoliteness using natural language processing software. The scored postings were examined to determine how impoliteness and politeness impact students' proclivity to engage in and produce more sustained argumentative exchanges to evaluate presented claims thoroughly. The findings from this study reveal the possible effects of specific behaviors on how students engage in argumentation and provide guidance on what behavioral standards to emphasize when students participate in group debates. Moreover, the findings lay the groundwork for establishing behavioral standards with clearer definitions of specific linguistic markers. Future iterations of netiquette guidelines can draw upon the findings from this study and future studies to furnish students with concrete examples that illustrate the practical application of each behavioral norm. [For the full proceedings, see ED665357.]