Free Speech. A grand thing. Every person can use it, especially within the internet.

However, there are drawbacks to this. People will often make ludicrous and erroneous claims that are completely unfounded or have no basis in reality. Free speech is certainly free. It can also be free and ridiculous. Just because a person can say something freely, does not mean it must be accepted because it was said, or has merit.

I've been working on what I call "The Internet Toolbox Of Debate Failure". To be posted just as an irritant, a response to those people who do just exactly whats outlined below.

I'm aware that these are almost all covered in some way by argumentative fallacies, but, I'm compiling this for shits & giggles and...you know.... If I post a list of argumentative fallacies it won't be long till accusations of "that's a Straw Herring!", "How dare you use the Red Man fallacy!", emerge.

I recall a poster from another forum, "PaulWV", had difficulty grasping the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Even after linking him to an explanation concerning the fallacy, he came back with this sort of reply....

<PaulWV> "that's ridiculous, of course all Scottish people are Scotsman, what does being Scottish have to do with being a real Christian?, a Scotsman can be Christian and Scottish...."

PaulWV then proceeded to throw out the "No True Scotsman" fallacy for everything he didn't agree with.... for weeks.

At any rate, any input, edits or additions would be appreciated. I'm trying to keep it secular and non specific, but many of these are hallmarks of the theist, although certainly not confined to the theist. You'll notice that many of these "tools of failure" are employed in Apostasy. Quite often

The Internet Toolbox Of Debate Failure

1. No response or an unanswered question

This is the most powerful tool of failure. And usually satisfying once you understand why its used. When arguments or points are not responded to, this is implied acquiescence. You don't respond or refute? Point(S) accepted. Example; <Debater1> "An invisible purple Elvis Lives in Boise, Idaho" <Debater2> "........................" Debater2 dare not dispute invisible purple Elvis later on. If you resubmit the question or statement the person may disappear. Tool #7 may follow eventually. Tool #4 may also be used.

2. "I have a "real" life...I am busy with more "important" things"

Yet they decided to join or engage. A frustrating and a weak excuse. Meant to denigrate, and indicate the discussion is unimportant.....but it was important enough to say that it wasn't important, paragraph after paragraph. Another point won, unless the person does respond in full, and is specific. Expect tools #1, 4, 6, and 7 on a regular basis too. A guerilla debater. Almost like #1, but they will make little forays, or commentary with no effort to actually participate.

3. The "meth defense", IE; "you must be on drugs"

This is thrown out when you've made a point, or points the other person hasn't considered(usually), and can't adequately respond to. Or, the other person can't make a lucid point, in that the point they make requires a suspension of reason, or is absurd. In a last ditch effort to save face, the person accuses you of "smoking meth", since you won't agree with them. You'll never get through to the person making the accusation... since you're "on meth~" These people will generally employ all of the tools with no shame whatsoever and never miss a beat.

4. "You aren't aware of what I'm aware of, so you can't comment and I don't have the time to "educate" you"

Given when things aren't looking good. When pressed for the "information", the general comeback is they don't have time and its far too complicated to get into(so complicated they can't even give a half assed explanation themselves) They usually get multiple phone calls during a discussion. If you press the issue, or do research and become "educated"...expect tool #6 to follow. At times you'll see this given in conjunction with tool#2 above.

5. "I won!, WOOHOO, I smeared you!"

This one is usually given when the person sees imminent disaster looming within a few questions, and additionally, the person will continue to reiterate this multiple times. Usually the point "won" was completely unrelated to the situation at hand, and it will quite possibly be a misunderstanding(obviously so), but, that scrawny dog already has a small scrap of(false)victory, and will sacrifice the entire discussion and cling to that. Similar to tool # 3. Same type personality too.

6. "You have your opinion, and I have mine"

Sure, and while that's perfectly valid if you're debating the best flavor of Jello™, in most situations, people don't debate the best flavor of Jello™. I've found that when this tool is used, usually one side is far from being pure opinion(substantiated, logical, supported with fact etc..)...and guess what? The other side IS OPINION. Completely unsupported, subjective, and asserted strongly. But very little to no facts. Sometimes followed by tool # 7.

7. "I was really busy so I had to be away for a week(S), where were we?"

This happens quite often after any or all of the tools above were used. The person WILL be gone for a period, the subject has changed or evolved during that time, and realizes that in most instances they'll get to just join in again(which is fine, but, all concerned do understand why). If you don't mind looking back through the previous dialog you can bring up where the person exited and remind them, thereby extending the anguish. Often preceded by tool #1 & #2.


As noted, all or some of the tools may be used in combination, and there are slight variations in all of the failure tools.

_________________
A lie is something that's only valuable to yourself. Truth is valuable to everyone. If the only thing you have to offer is something that is only valuable to you, then people will eventually not seek you out for what you have to offer.

Good stuff, I also notice the " yer mum" rebuttal gaining prominence. For some reason I blame myself.

Perhaps this will cover what you've mentioned, and also, a broader application.

8. "Ruse of the mime"

Wherein you make solid points, even using derision and ridicule in driving home an observation. Within a day or so those same points or arguments you used are recycled by the person you used them on, but they fail miserably. Just like a mime at imitating reality. It never quite clicks. They'll even try and give the impression that the recycled commentary is original. Irritating, but flattering, because it must have impacted them. So they attempt to emulate something that did work, on them. If only they could really do it. Sadly, nothing original ever crosses their mind. Expect tools #2, and #3 as well.

_________________
A lie is something that's only valuable to yourself. Truth is valuable to everyone. If the only thing you have to offer is something that is only valuable to you, then people will eventually not seek you out for what you have to offer.

Great post, Scar. I've seen all these tactics and more in my years debating online. These sorts of "debates" if the term is used very loosely, are most often found in live chat, and less often in forums (though still quite prevalent here too).

Some others I can think of

9. "I'll just repeat this point ad nauseam"

People lacking any real debate skills often rely on this frustrating tactic, whereby they continually raise the same refuted point anew, as thought it had never been raised yet. Either from mental retardation or disingenuousness, this ploy is the refuge of those drowning in a debate.


10. All facts are created equal.

This absurd reasoning is often cried by Christians towards evolutionists, when they smugly smile and snivel that evolution is "just a theory" and no more believable than their precious bible. These types will go even further, bringing into question any scientific fact at all, yet by their own flawed reasoning, if they applied even a fraction of the doubt they triumphantly declare they have for scientific facts, to their own preposterous religious claims, their own beliefs would fail any test of merit, miserably. You'll also see these people equating the value of all links, whereby their links to some blog written by some random jackass on the internet is held to the same esteem as a peer reviewed scientific article.


...another stratagem of debatedly impoverished:


11. "You can't comprehend the esoteric reasoning that I use."

Only those castrated of their integrity attempt this specious subterfuge. It's either that they lack the skills to articulate their intimate understanding, or more likely - they don't have any at all, and use this as a chimera to stall any further progress in debate. A specific flavour of this tack is making claims of "divine knowledge" or understanding that one can only have if they are personally touched by God, an understanding they can't even begin to relate to anyone else because, of course, it's devoid of any basis in reality whatsoever.


12. The Hypocrite Defense

I've seen this again and again, even from battle hardened debaters. They'll call you out on some minor point, perhaps your spelling in a retort, while they honeymoon with hypocrisy, making a litany of spelling errors themselves. Another common example of this hypocrite defense occurs when they attempt to fault you for name calling at them, after you frustratingly suffer a panoply of pejorative innuendo from them. They'll often move to tool #9, and repeat ad nauseam, as their coup de grâce.

_________________

HAHAA, I can't believe I missed # 9.

Good additions. And accurate. I'll agree all of these are commonly seen in live chat, and as you mentioned in some of the more formal forums.

MOST of these came from Apostasy(MX at large too), and from the topix forum I frequent. The topix forum lies somewhere in between live chat and a point/counterpoint type forum. (PaulWV is from topix)

Tools #1, #4 and #6 are staples of just about all discussions at some point. Either live chat, a forum, or real life.

Depending on the subject and person, #6 at times might be acceptable, but only if the person has given a good representation of the side they are arguing. And its a subject that can rest solely on opinion, which is pretty rare...

_________________
A lie is something that's only valuable to yourself. Truth is valuable to everyone. If the only thing you have to offer is something that is only valuable to you, then people will eventually not seek you out for what you have to offer.