How to debate properly on a forum

General Discussion
1 2 3 5 Next
I have seen a lot of balance debate lately and I figured I would give you insight into some common and effective strategies to debate on the internet.

1. Straw-man: Misrepresent your opponents position. The goal is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

2. Red Herring: Intentionally distract from the issue at hand, making unrelated claims (usually used in conjunction or confusion with a straw-man.)

3. Reducto ad Hitlerum: When all else fails, just compare something to Hitler to make it seem automatically bad.

4. Sweeping Generalizations: Make a statement that refuses to acknowledge exceptions.

5. Hasty Generalizations: Make a generalization based on a single or unique incident or event.

6. Irrelevant Conclusions: Divert attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.

7. Affirm the consequent: Draw a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.

8. Always beg the question: Demonstrate a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.

9. Non-Sequiturs are your friends: Incorrectly assume one thing is the cause of another.

9a. Believie that temporal succession implies a causal relation.

9b. Believe that correlation implies a causal relation


10. Ask many questions: Group more than one question in the form of a single question.

Ex: Have you stopped being a bad player? (no matter the answer, you undercut their opinion)

11. No Good Terrans: When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

Ex:
Person 1: Ghosts don't counter infestors
Person 2: I've countered infestors with ghosts
Person 3: No good terrans can counter infestors with ghosts (or, adversely, no good zerg lets infestors get countered by ghosts)


12. Special pleading/pleading to a higher league: When in doubt, make sure to call out the persons league. It is never sufficient unless they are rank 1 GM, but even then you can write off that position or any tournament results by suggesting the person got lucky cause of imbalance in the first place.

ex. Person one has X (in this case, a higher placement) and asserts correctness, or person two lacks X and is assumed incorrect, regardless of actual observations/argument.

13.Analogy > Evidence: Your feelings, single-game loss observations or specific examples to prove that you are right (a form of generalization) ALWAYS trumps evidence. Statistics are a cowards vehicle.

14. Ad hominem: Always attack the person or their credentials. Simply calling them trolls is sufficient in most cases, but feel free to utilize special pleading in this case.

That's it for my guide on how to carry on an intelligent internet debate. Now you have a quick reference tool for making sure you are always right, even in the face of utter failure and adversity.
This is some good stuff. Learned a lot about logical fallacies and how to call someone out when they pull this !@#$ on me.

9.2/10
Wow, this forum has stopped sucking so much in terms of, well sucking, I guess. Well done.
INB4 Report!

Ponera, you DO know that it's Infestors not Infesters right?
Excellent post. 9.5/10, would recommend to a friend.

I especially like this one:
3. Reducto ad Hitlerum: When all else fails, just compare something to Hitler to make it seem automatically bad.
I will fix that then
Can you also stop drinking?
I would suggest the content in this post is a bit above the average drunk post.
Beacuse you're better then the average drunk.
+1 and sticky.
See my "infestor buff" thread op for examples of several of these.
+1
Clearly you are unfamiliar with HeReTiC's way of winning arguments: Pointing out how bad the other person's grammar is.

11/12/2012 11:48 AMPosted by Ponera
opponents


Forgot an apostrophe.

11/12/2012 11:48 AMPosted by Ponera
unequivalent


Not even a word.
That is amateur hour compared to the suggestions here and is, in a way, a form of ad hominem. You basically undercut the person by making them look stupid, without tackling what they say.
Love it haha you seem to know fallacies well.
11/12/2012 12:07 PMPosted by Ponera
That is amateur hour compared to the suggestions here


Missing a period and you forgot one of your own tips.

6. Irrelevant Conclusions: Divert attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.
11/12/2012 12:07 PMPosted by Ponera
You basically undercut the person by making them look stupid, without tackling what they say.


First of all, you have an unnecessary comma there. Second, if you're stupid why should I bother reasoning with you, considering the fact that you clearly can not compete with me on an intellectual level and therefore cannot have a reasonable debate with me?
Don't forget the good ole' "If you disagree you're stupid." policy.

I.E, "Wait, you don't think X is OP? Really? LOL WOW!"
Red Herring: Intentionally distract from the issue at hand, making unrelated claims (usually used in conjunction or confusion with a straw-man.)


Boom.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum