Erttheking's New and Improved Super Special guideline to debating!

[Erttheking]

We all know how important making a good impression when talking about politics on the internet is, so here are some pointers.

#1: Never admit that you're wrong. The point of debating online is to share your geunis with all of the stupid people that make up most of the world's population, as such, you can't afford to hold back. Every point that your opponent makes is wrong and if they're ever right about something, it's something you already thought.

#2: Citing Sources. Citing sources is only for other people to do. As we have established, you are a genius, therefore your opinion is accepted by the scientific community as undeniable fact. Only ask for sources from other people, when they ask for sources from you, just tell them to look it up themselves. It's not your fault they can't understand your brilliance. Also, because any source your opponent will post will automatically be biased and untrustworthy, after all, it disagrees with you.

#3: Labels. Labels are used to group people together to make it easier to identify how stupid tey are. Labels are proven to be 100% accurate and perfectly define everyone they touch. Where's the evidence for this? See point #2

#4: Accuse your opponent of logical fallacies even if they didn't actually commit one. Odds are they would've committed one in the future, so you save time by getting the accusation out of the way early.

#5: No offense automatically makes it ok to say anything!

#6: Much like labels, stereotypes have been proven to be true if they're a group you don't like, so feel free to use them as the scientific fact that they are. Groups that you are a part of though? Dirty lies and assumptions. Same with labels.

#7: Winning an argument isn't about convincing the other person that you're right, it's about keeping the argument going and going until they get fed up with it and go to do something else.

#8: Make a pretentious parody thread to show everyone how (Un)funny you are because you're so meta/ironic/clever/Etc.

#9: It's ok to post a video as your entire argument without building off of it.

Feel free to add more advice to this brilliant list!

 

[PsychicTaco115]

#8: Make a pretentious parody thread to show everyone how (Un)funny you are because you're so meta/ironic/clever/Etc.

Hey! I made those before it was kewl like the dirty hipster I am! ;P

But srs now...

I really think that proper debate is nigh impossible on the internet because of the lack of face-to-face communication, subtleties and body language that can only happen in reality

Impossible may be hyperbolic though... I'd say difficult to achieve. I hope one day we can do it but for now, not so much

Especially with those damn 140 character limits and those damn trending hashtags (#ShotsFired)

 

[IceForce]

#7: Winning an argument isn't about convincing the other person that you're right, it's about keeping the argument going and going until they get fed up with it and go to do something else.

... Or until one of you gets a warning. In which case, the one who didn't get a warning wins the argument by default.

I'm pretty sure I've "won" quite a few arguments on this forum, based on this metric.

 

[Skatologist]

#4: Accuse your opponent of logical fallacies even if they didn't actually commit one. Odds are they would've committed one in the future, so you save time by getting the accusation out of the way early.

Isn't this a hasty generalization? Or is it a red herring? Could always be an ad populum...

#5: No offense automatically makes it ok to say anything!

I think all your opinions are wrong and you should seriously contemplate living in this thing called "reality". No offense.

#7: Winning an argument isn't about convincing the other person that you're right, it's about keeping the argument going and going until they get fed up with it and go to do something else.

Remember if they quit talking to you because you are so irritating super special smart, you win!

#8: Make a pretentious parody thread to show everyone how (Un)funny you are because you're so meta/ironic/clever/Etc.

That's actually not relevant to anything, I just like that picture. :3

#9: It's ok to post a video as your entire argument without building off of it.

Feel free to add more advice to this brilliant list!

#10: If you ever make an error in an argument (which you won't do because you are perfect), you are to never apologize for that error. It automatically proves that all your positions are worthless.

 

[DementedSheep]

#11 If a celebrity agrees with your veiwpoint (or at least it sounds like they might based on one or two sentences with no context) you win and don't need to add anything else to the argument because being a celebrity means you can't be wrong.

 

[Jux]

We all know how important making a good impression when talking about politics on the internet is, so here are some pointers.

#1: Never admit that you're wrong. The point of debating online is to share your geunis with all of the stupid people that make up most of the world's population, as such, you can't afford to hold back. Every point that your opponent makes is wrong and if they're ever right about something, it's something you already thought.

Why does this feel like intentional bait for people to point out you spelled 'genius' wrong just so you can apply rule #1? XD

I would also submit as a corollary to @DementedSheep's #11 that this also more broadly applies to quotes from scientists and philosophers. Quote, and full stop, no critical thought needed.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

This guide is fallacious. There's nothing about the importance of ad hominems in it. You dirty bastard.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

#10: If you ever make an error in an argument (which you won't do because you are perfect), you are to never apologize for that error. It automatically proves that all your positions are worthless.

To be fair, while I do resent the way people are practically allergic meeting others half way (never mind changing opinions), I feel people would be more willing to accept defeat if their opponents were even semi capable of accepting victory with any sense of grace.
It seems most people would rather see their opponents slink away as an enemy, rather than have them come forth as an ally.
And I don't entirely absolve myself of this behaviour ...

 

[Twintix]

#8: Make a pretentious parody thread to show everyone how (Un)funny you are because you're so meta/ironic/clever/Etc.

Bruh.

OT: I have one you can add:

Sweeping generalisations are never OK. Unless it's you doing the sweeping, the feel free to go nuts with it all the while you defend your clique from said sweeping.

Also, if you're a feminist, you lose by default of being a feminist.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

#13.If someone disagrees with you they're evil monsters who kidnapped children and sacrifices them to Cthulhu and you should treat them as subhuman

 

[Suhi89]

I think another one is to remember that arguing on the internet isn't about convincing anyone, it's about winning against the dirty other. If you feel like you're being too convincing, stop and throw some insults in to put your opponent's defences up. The plus side is, this will make others on your side cheer for you all the more.

Never disagree with anyone on your side, even if they're clearly wrong. Defend their wrongness to the hilt. Tribal unity is more important than being right.

Always cherry pick the weakest of your opponents' arguments and present them as representative. This helps with the whole 'winning' thing again.

If you must cite sources, use ones that are dense and will take a long time to read through. That way, it's unlikely that anyone will notice that the source doesn't really support your position, or does so incredibly weakly at best. If this is unavailable, just use a random blog post that does agree with your position and present it as authoritative.

If on twitter, always remember that taking any random 140 character chunk out of context is a perfectly valid tactic, even if the context is perfectly clear from other tweets. Just post the offending tweet on reddit or in a national newspaper and most people won't check, and most of those who do will have already been primed to see the worst. When bringing up the incident in the future, especially if you have a platform in a national newspaper, ignore any attempted clarifications or apologies.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Guide to debating:
1)Don't debate
2)No Twitter
3)Kill Facebook
4)???
5)Profit.

 

[Barbas]

#14: Enough time has passed. It is now ironically cool to dismiss an opponent or ideological enemy's points as being "fake and gay". This saves everyone time and is appreciated.

#15: Wikipedia, Wikipedia, Wikipedia.

 

[Frission]

This guide is fallacious. There's nothing about the importance of ad hominems in it. You dirty bastard.

No, because here it's all about that delicious, delicious passive aggressiveness.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

This guide is fallacious. There's nothing about the importance of ad hominems in it. You dirty bastard.

No, because here it's all about that delicious, delicious passive aggressiveness.

Ah yes, excuse me. I probably should have specified subtle enough ad hominems. My mistake. :<

 

[freaper]

#8: Make a pretentious parody thread to show everyone how (Un)funny you are because you're so meta/ironic/clever/Etc.

Hey! I made those before it was kewl like the dirty hipster I am! ;P

But srs now...

I really think that proper debate is nigh impossible on the internet because of the lack of face-to-face communication, subtleties and body language that can only happen in reality

Impossible may be hyperbolic though... I'd say difficult to achieve. I hope one day we can do it but for now, not so much

Especially with those damn 140 character limits and those damn trending hashtags (#ShotsFired)

Debating on the internet is the perfect sociopathic experience; you don't receive any immediate feedback, so you can't build the conversation off of empathy, because, like you said, there is no face-to-face interaction. This will probably never go away as long as digital communication stays the same, but as long as everyone involved makes an effort to be aware of this fallacy, we should be fine.

 

[gLoveofLove]

If you have ever, even once, heard someone of one group say something that conflicts with something someone else of the same group said it means that the entire group is hypocritical.

Similarly:
Anything anyone of a certain group says can then be attributed to the entire group- including the person you're debated whether they identify with that group or not.

 

[Armadox]

All debating must be done in the arena of rap battle. If you can't take the time to argue what's on your mind, while dropping a fat rhyme then you can step off mine.

 

[Ishal]

Heh, number 8 is pretty popular around here lately.

"Muh artistic vision" anyone?

 

[renegade7]

#16 Remember that everything you personally disagree with is all one unified ideological bloc, regardless of what your opponent actually believes. And they're out to get you.

#17 Try to sound smarter than the other person by using big words and more florid sentence structures. An especially easy way to do this is to not use contractions and make a huge show of it: the world will see the true depth of your intellect by your repeated use of "is it not" instead of "isn't". Bonus if they are words you don't actually understand and your sentences read like a high school English assignment.

#18 Every good argument needs a personal touch. Create a personal anecdote that perfectly demonstrates why your position is correct. Ideally, it should be focused on how you've been personally hurt by people who disagree with you on the very specific issue at hand, because normal people in the real world care about your opinion on it.

#18 If the subject matter is technical or scientific, claim that you have working knowledge of or an advanced degree in the subject. Bonus points if there's another thread on the board in which you've made it plainly obvious that you do not (For instance, claiming to have a Master's in computer engineering during an ATI/Nvidia debate despite saying in another thread less than an hour ago that you didn't go to college). Extra bonus if an actual expert calls you on your fib and you accuse him of elitist credentialism.

#19 Scientists who've published work that you find fits your ideology are geniuses. Be sure to let everyone know this by embellishing their names with "Dr Professor Steven von McScientist PhD MSci BS BA" and remind us that they were at some point associated with a prestigious institution.

#20 Scientists who've published work that soundly refutes your position are part of the elitist scientific orthodoxy.

#21 Try to spice things up by taking your debate opponent and everyone watching the thread on a grand tour of your psyche. Aim for the thread to reveal every last one of your deep-seated anxieties in as Freudian a way as possible. Extra bonus if it reveals an indication that you may need professional help.

#22 The Crackpot Index is an excellent scorecard for how good your argument is: the higher your score, the better!

#23 If someone links a Wikipedia article remind everyone that Wikipedia isn't a valid source, while ignoring the pages of references at the bottom of the article. Ideally, this should be done without providing a source to counter the claim made by the Wikipedia article.

This guide is fallacious. There's nothing about the importance of ad hominems in it. You dirty bastard.

Oh, that reminds me:

#24 Screech about ad hominems, strawman arguments, and correlation not implying causation while putting forward no substantial counterargument of your own.