Internet Argument Techniques

From the boys at Cracked. I'm putting it here because, you never know. Thankfully I can say we don't do most of these.

IMAGE(http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob//internet_graphic1.jpg)

How to Combat These Techniques

The important thing to remember is that you are dealing with a person who has essentially placed a twig on their head and expects you to believe they are a tree. Armored in that level of "confidence," almost anything you say will be construed by them as evidence that their tree disguise is working, so you will have to be very specific and to the point in addressing exactly what they're doing and why it's not fooling anyone.

Subtlety and sarcasm are great tools but there is no way in hell they will get through to this poor sap. Unless you're just toying with them for your amusement, the best way to put an end to it is just to be direct. Point them to this guide if necessary, explain that you know what they are doing, and that it is so obvious it can be seen from space.

Chances are they will just end up placing more twigs on their head, praying fervently that this will succeed, but at least you gave it your best shot.

#8 is awesome.

We should just add these to the TOS.

I like number 8, too. It reminds me of one of my favorite bumper-stickers: "The 1st Amendment: Giving you the right to make an ass of yourself since 1791."

beautiful.

[edit] When you type a single word in italics, it totally looks like a mod edit. This was not.

Dude - you speled argument wronge.

goman wrote:

Dude - you speled argument wronge.

Yes, therefore your entire thread is invalidated, Edwin. TRY AGAIN.

I forgot my keys.

Also, when I read this on Cracked, #4 immediately reminded me of this forum. For no reason, of course.

Damn it! Go ahead and ban me and then delete my account. I'm sure the grammar nazis will be flying their blackhawk unicorns to waterboard me at their secret detention centers is Romania soon enough.

Edwin wrote:

Damn it! Go ahead and ban me and then delete my account. I'm sure the grammar nazis will be flying their blackhawk unicorns to waterboard me at their secret detention centers is Romania soon enough.

I'm pretty sure you're impeding my free speech. I'm a lawyer, so I know.

Could it really be true that Seth is a lying jerk?

droll

Well, even when you go on a "reasonably" intelligent site like the NYTimes, the list of most common logical fallacies is repeated constantly in the discussion session.

I usually expect a few "dirty blows" from all Op-Ed articles as well, but usually it's within a tolerable limit if the newspaper is decent

If you guys want to facepalm, check out Yahoo Answers

I just want you to know that I'm reading this forum ironically.

mooosicle wrote:

If you guys want to facepalm, check out Yahoo Answers

Yahoo Answers is one of the greatest sources of unintentional comedy on the internet.

how u maek babby?

mooosicle wrote:

how u maek babby?

Dude, no. "How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent?"

Brush up on your memes.

Also, the flash version is excellent.

I think that the one thing that's glaringly missing there is the Trump Card approach. It's when someone uses a (generally overused and improperly used) phrase of some sort that they believe is a rhetorical ace that cannot be argued against and makes them sound excessively insightful all at once.

The best example I can come up with is when discussing stories, writing, and/or characters, someone will invariably crash in with the "That guy is a tooootal Mary Sue" (feel free to instead use any of the five million made-up-on-the-spot "tropes" from tvtropes.com for extra douche points). They will then keep simply repeating themselves and brandishing the phrase around as if it ends all discussion.

Another good one is the End of Discussion maneuver, wherein you state your opinion as fact and then declare the conversation over to prevent people from disagreeing with you.
"X is better than Y. End of discussion."
"But I like Y because..."
"I SAID END OF DISCUSSION."

Anyhow, I quit posting on EvilAvatar and most of its progeny because...

For all the circular discussions leading back to anarchist capitalism, or armchair constitutional law, this site keeps politics classy compared to anywhere else I have been. Because, with odd exceptions, folks around here have a healthy understanding of-This is my strong belief, not this is a fact I must convince you unwashed heathens to accept.

I don't think I have once gotten flack for calling the Xbox a crappy DVD player for example.

muttonchop wrote:

Another good one is the End of Discussion maneuver, wherein you state your opinion as fact and then declare the conversation over to prevent people from disagreeing with you.
"X is better than Y. End of discussion."
"But I like Y because..."
"I SAID END OF DISCUSSION."

and /thread!

I've seen #2 so, so, so, SO MANY TIMES on the internet at this point. I'd call 1,2,9, and 11 the most common.

How can someone compile a guide to internet arguing without referring to Godwin's law. Yes, I see that they skimmed over it in #9, but how can you have a real authentic internet argument without comparing your opponent to a terrorist KKK Hitler-loving baby eater?

From this point forward I think I might have to sign up for everything with "Cocktopus".

LilCodger wrote:

From this point forward I think I might have to sign up for everything with "Cocktopus".

I imagine it's taken pretty much everywhere. Wish that was a joke.

So is "junkmonkey". I once wrote a blog post referring to some pubtard I ran into by that name as a general pejorative, and I got a bunch of angry email from people who thought I'd been talking about them or their buddy with that tag. I thought it was kind of funny because if they were the guy who was acting like that I wouldn't have been so proud of it.