Revision (current)
Last Updated by Nach on 11/21/2012 9:30 PM
Having been a member of online forums for a long time, I've noticed many techniques people use when arguing with others. These highly polished debating techniques make it appear to the untrained eye as though one is winning an argument, while in fact they are simply reconstructing, redefining, or redirecting the argument in order to make themselves the victor. __Don't get caught using one of these techniques.__
*__1.__ Turn a generality into an absolute.
**Example: Someone makes a general statement that ''Americans celebrate Christmas''. Respond with: ''Some Americans are Jewish, therefore anyone who thinks that __all__ Americans celebrate Christmas is a fool.'' Gain bonus points by accusing the original poster of being anti-Semitic.
*__2.__ Turn a factual statement into an implied preference.
**Example: Someone mentions that ''Not all Catholic priests are pedophiles''. Respond with: ''The original poster condones pedophilia''. Gain bonus points by accusing the original poster of being a pedophile himself.
*__3.__ Turn a factual statement into a biased opinion.
**Example: Someone mentions that ''10% of new laptop purchases in a given year are Macbooks''. Respond with: ''The original poster is giving a favorable report about Apple, therefore the poster must be an Apple fanatic, and cannot be trusted.'' Gain bonus points by questioning if the original poster is in fact being paid by Apple to advertise in online communities.
*__4.__ Turn a factual statement into implied equivalents.
**Example: Someone states that ''Gandhi didn’t eat cows''. Respond with: ''The poster is implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi''. Gain bonus points by suggesting that the original poster idiotically believes that Gandhi thought cows were his equals in every way.
*__5.__ Omit key nouns.
**Example: Someone mentions that ''People can’t eat __rocks__''. Respond with: ''The original poster is stupid for suggesting that __people can’t eat__''. Gain bonus points by arguing with a similar yet extreme example that ''some people'' __can eat pebbles__ if they try hard enough.
*__6.__ Omit key qualifiers.
**Example: Someone mentions that ''Diving under a table suffices for __most__ earthquake situations in California.'' Respond with: ''The original poster believes a mere table provides ample protection against a __building-shattering level 9__ earthquake''. Gain bonus points by citing verifiable sources detailing people killed while cowering under a table.
*__7.__ Assume the dumbest interpretation.
**Example: Someone mentions that he can ''Run a mile in 12 minutes''. Assume he means he can do so __underwater__ and argue that ''no one can hold his breath that long''. Gain bonus points by equating the original poster with other famous boasters and exaggerators.
*__8.__ Assume an interpretation that can't possibly be correct given the context.
**Example: Someone who is widely acknowledged to love toast mentions that ''Nothing is better than toast''. Respond that: ''The original poster would prefer to __eat nothing__ and go hungry, __rather than eat toast__, and therefore is now a toast hater''. Gain bonus points by accusing the original poster of never liking toast in the first place.
*__9.__ Hallucinate entirely different points.
**Example: Someone posts that ''Apples grow on trees''. Accuse him of posting that ''Snakes have arms'', and then point out how stupid that is. Gain bonus points by validating your hallucination by pointing out that a snake got Eve to eat from an apple tree, which the original poster is obviously referring to, and is a fool for thinking all snakes today have arms.
*__10.__ Use the intellectual laziness card.
**Example: Someone posts that ''Ice is cold''. Respond with: ''He needs to take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice''. Gain bonus points by citing examples of people who've experienced a burning sensation with ice, or dry ice.
*__11.__ Use an opinion or preference to imply other opinions and preferences.
**Example: Someone posts that ''Based on medical research I've done, it seems to me that President Kennedy was suffering from a heretofore unknown disease''. Respond with: ''The original poster is implying that he believes that Kennedy's lobotomized sister exploited such knowledge in a revenge plot ending in the infamous assassination''. Gain bonus points by also implying that the original poster stupidly believes that the Mars Rover project is a hoax, despite much evidence otherwise, and a lack of any plausible motive to even fabricate such a project.