Internet Debating - the rules (How to make your opponent's statement sound stupid)

Apostate
Apostate's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Internet Debating - the rules (How to make your opponent's statement sound stupid)

If you are new to the Internet, allow me to explain how to debate in this medium. When one person makes any kind of statement, all you need to do is apply one of these methods to make it sound stupid. Then go on the offensive.

  1. Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)
  2. Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.
  3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.
  4. Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.
  5. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.
  6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.
  7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

Those are the basic tools that come to mind. If you think of some more, feel free to leave them in a comment.

(I can't claim credit for this. These I copied from http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/results_of_why_.html)

Don't some of these sound like the way certain theists debate?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
LOL

LOL

Don't forget: Target only one thing. So if someone writes a brilliant thesis on morality versus religion, ignore it and focus on a spelling mistake he made. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Apostate
Apostate's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

LOL

Don't forget: Target only one thing. So if someone writes a brilliant thesis on morality versus religion, ignore it and focus on a spelling mistake he made.

That should be Rule Number 8. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
You may have noticed that it

You may have noticed that it happens to be the  favourite tactic tactic of many theists on this site. I think we should have some regulation on this. Many times I have written a long answer only to have a theist "rebut" it, by pointing out I have a date wrong or a single  not-particularly-relevant line has an inaccuracy or whatever.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism