Idiotic Debating Tactics

idiotic debating tactic #12093: america bashing

america bashing is different than bashing other nations, in that it presents a blatant hypocrisy, however is widely and conveniently overlooked via group think. it seems that people feel a boost in self esteem and national pride when they pigeonhole an entire nation of people. someone gets a .jpg email of a cartoon world map depicting an american's limited or nonexistant knowlege of the world, and dont forget the fat references, like that morbidly obese kid at mcdonalds. then armed with pictures/jokes/anecdotal second-hand knowledge they go on to call americans ignorant. funny huh?

Originally posted by BackFire
I would if she was naked.

ah i love you in the way one man loves another man but dosn't involve waxed chests or touching...yeah.

i love when you see religious shows that are about "why the bible is real" then to prove that it is infact real, quote from the bible. its like if i heard something from my friend (lets just say his names Jerry) like "3/4 of americans I.Qs are below 50" and someone asked me to prove it, i'd say "ok. Jerry said 3/4 of Americans have an I.Q below 50! there you go, proof!"

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
German Grammar Nazi delighting in English mis-use. Love it.

I am German.

Oh and, "Bardock invented Soap"...that's a fun game. Continue.

Originally posted by PVS
idiotic debating tactic #12093: america bashing

america bashing is different than bashing other nations, in that it presents a blatant hypocrisy, however is widely and conveniently overlooked via group think. it seems that people feel a boost in self esteem and national pride when they pigeonhole an entire nation of people. someone gets a .jpg email of a cartoon world map depicting an american's limited or nonexistant knowlege of the world, and dont forget the fat references, like that morbidly obese kid at mcdonalds. then armed with pictures/jokes/anecdotal second-hand knowledge they go on to call americans ignorant. funny huh?

Originally posted by FeceMan
That's not really a debating tactic...have we changed subjects onto "idiotic posting habits" now?

its the end debate.

*insert argument here* , but i guess you wouldnt know that because your a stupid american, too busy getting fat and clogging your arteries on bigmacs to pay attention to what goes on outside your own boarders. *continue by attacking america's system of education if all else fails*

end result: argument is won by default by discrediting the opponent simply on the grounds that they are american.

yes, i know. its straw man tactics and ad hominem, but i feel this deserves its own mention....ya think?

Originally posted by PVS
its the end debate.

end result: argument is won by default by discrediting the opponent simply on the grounds that they are american.

yes, i know. its straw man tactics and ad hominem, but i feel this deserves its own mention....ya think?

Never happened to me....

DAMN!!! i forgot to add:

*post fake studies and figures, saying things such as "99.9999999999999% of americans cannot find their own country on a globe"....when confronted for a source, claim that you saw it a while back, but cant find the link now...but assure them that its true by saying "trust me, its a genuine study...etc" and things of the like.

which brings me to the next idiotic debating tactic: fixed/nonexistant figures
either post links to agenda based/profit driven sites and claim they are objective and valid sources, or simply make up figures. when confronted for sources, follow same method as stated above.

80% of KMCers make numbers up

KMC annoying debater no 101011001

the cream puffer...those people who argue and argue and argue completely false opinions and when proven wrong, storm out of the thread like petulant child with comments such as

this is about as low as it gets. the debate ends here before i tell you what i really think of you and get banned.

🙄

and the next one: file cabinet trolling.

file cabinet trolling fascinates me, as it illustrates a member's obsession with another. its tough to grasp unless you, yourself find that a member has quoted you from many months ago. of coarse, the context of the post is always left out to preserve the illusion of rightous vengence, as if simply parroting someone's words proves them wrong. but when confronted with this idiotic debating tactic, one must give pause, and ponder just how much they must mean to the individual who has made a hobby out of categorising their many many posts, and how much they would lament your absence from the forum.

Originally posted by PVS
and the next one: file cabinet trolling.

file cabinet trolling fascinates me, as it illustrates a member's obsession with another. its tough to grasp unless you, yourself find that a member has quoted you from many months ago. of coarse, the context of the post is always left out to preserve the illusion of rightous vengence, as if simply parroting someone's words proves them wrong. but when confronted with this idiotic debating tactic, one must give pause, and ponder just how much they must mean to the individual who has made a hobby out of categorising their many many posts, and how much they would lament your absence from the forum.

everyones obsession with whob pretty much sums that up...oh wait..that means you doesn't it?

you obviously remember that skinning well dont you...seared in your memory...

i would indeed miss you if you were gone..you provide both hilarious and completely non sensical posts with fiery aggression and scathing insults of anyone who doesn't agree

all the while creating genius insult about different types of posters....whilst being completely oblivious to the fact that you have been guilty of just about every single one

it's absolutely brilliant

i will say this in your favour

this is a forum dedicated to movies. people come here to debate whether wolverine could beat superman at thumb wrestling. people come here and spend all their time prattling on about how dreamy depp is in PotC. what do you expect of this place?

thats a very good point

yeah, thats wonderful. did i mention you by name or do you just have a guilty conscience?

Originally posted by PVS
i[b]no names please, just state it, and if giving an example do not paste a debate from another thread. just give a hypothetical example. [/B]

which brings me to the next idiotic debating tactic: thread sabotage.

when you find yourself in a corner, or even when you see a thread which does not suit your pallet, stir up a fight or two with the hopes that a flame war will ensue and thus the mods will shut the thread down. make sure to persist in spite of the topic. sure you risk scrutiny on yourself, but what really matters is feeling validated in that you were able to shut them up. sure you proved nothing, but you did bring the discussion to a close and thats all that matters.

new one: correct by way of implied empathy

example:

poster 1: i feel that something must be done about the aids outbreak in africa. how can the world just sit back and watch so many men, women, and children die???

poster 2: PFFFFFFFT whatever. you know what? when i was 9 i had the worst case of chicken pox you have EVER SEEN. but you know what? i toughened up and got through it, and no governments/tax payers had to throw money in my direction!

this tactic is usually applied to 'win' debates concerning the overabundance or lack of blessings of an individual, group, country, or race/ethnicity.

new one: correct by way of implied need for empathy

example:

poster 1: I disagree.

poster 2: If you were (insert the type of person perceived as needing empathy here) you'd agree with me

poster 1: I still disagree.

poster 2: You are still wrong, you can't say you'd disagree if you were (insert the type of person perceived as needing empathy here)

Hmmm...

Empathy Whores, unite!

Originally posted by PVS
which brings me to the next idiotic debating tactic: fixed/nonexistant figures
either post links to agenda based/profit driven sites and claim they are objective and valid sources, or simply make up figures. when confronted for sources, follow same method as stated above.

A variation of this is Slothful Induction:

"Clearly, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, whose president is in the process of having his membership in the American Psychoanalytic Association revoked, and whose membership is not limited to licensed mental health professionals, is a more reputable mental health organization than the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, etc."

Originally posted by Regret
new one: correct by way of implied need for empathy

example:

poster 1: I disagree.

poster 2: If you were (insert the type of person perceived as needing empathy here) you'd agree with me

poster 1: I still disagree.

poster 2: You are still wrong, you can't say you'd disagree if you were (insert the type of person perceived as needing empathy here)

I agree with that (and most of the others so far.) A variation on this one that annoys me is the "You don't meet the conditions to *really* understand tactic" - here a poster, met with someone who disagrees with them, implies that they are only diasgreeing because they are missing some percieved extra that would make you agree with them - such as the holy spirit, a certain skin color, coming from a certain nation, being a certain gender.

Originally posted by PVS
yeah, thats wonderful. did i mention you by name or do you just have a guilty conscience?

which brings me to the next idiotic debating tactic: thread sabotage.

when you find yourself in a corner, or even when you see a thread which does not suit your pallet, stir up a fight or two with the hopes that a flame war will ensue and thus the mods will shut the thread down. make sure to persist in spite of the topic. sure you risk scrutiny on yourself, but what really matters is feeling validated in that you were able to shut them up. sure you proved nothing, but you did bring the discussion to a close and thats all that matters.

so it's closeted insults you're into...if you have a problem with someone...have the cahones to tell them...instead of making pointless threads that generalise (something which you say you dont like yet do it all the time)

and i didn't mention you by name either..you just provided a perfect example of the kind of childish "toys out of the pram" tactic that people who have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be wrong, love to throw out in a feeble attempt to have the last word

if you dont want me to ruin your thread then you can pm rather than replying...

Originally posted by jaden101
so it's closeted insults you're into...if you have a problem with someone...have the cahones to tell them...instead of making pointless threads that generalise (something which you say you dont like yet do it all the time)

and i didn't mention you by name either..you just provided a perfect example of the kind of childish "toys out of the pram" tactic that people who have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be wrong, love to throw out in a feeble attempt to have the last word

if you dont want me to ruin your thread then you can pm rather than replying...

You mentioned him by name though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You mentioned him by name though.

no didn't...i quoted this

this is about as low as it gets. the debate ends here before i tell you what i really think of you and get banned.

unless of course, his name is cream puffer or petulant child

but if the shoe fits