Idiotic Debating Tactics

Originally posted by FeceMan
Damn. She really is a psychology student writing a dissertation. She's going to be rich and famous.

Too bad she forgot the "you."

they said i was deluded and paranoid...now what say they? hehe

Originally posted by FeceMan
EDIT: Also, how could anyone not realize that Schecter = PVS?

hehe yeah, its cute how some people 'discover' that and 'expose' me.

Another tactic: Making a thread of absolute stupidity after being here less than 6 months, then aggressively insulting everyone in the thread that called you an idiot.

Originally posted by lord xyz
then aggressively insulting everyone in the thread that called you an idiot.

aggressive? how so. i hope not to the point where they would call someone an idiot 😕

Originally posted by Schecter
wonderful but this is not a debating tactic.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It is, in fact. you have to be open to all avenues of the topic to debate it properly. you sometimes have to also use analogies.

yeah thats great but still this:

Originally posted by debbiejo
People should be open to "What if's" more.

It IS a sign of genius ya know. 😖mart:

is not a debating tactic.

its not genius, i agree. but to dismiss it weakens your skill as a debater.

"what if" is not a mode of debate. it is a query.

Well all scientists use it as a means of expanding knowledge. It's actually more productive then if scientists just debated each other. Nothing would ever be learned nor gained.

"what if" could be an analogy, if applied a certain way.

not topic: "is it better to sit around and ask "what if"" and never debate a thing"
the implication being that the unanimous answer to every "what if""
is: "yeah...sure why not""

topic: idiotic debating tactics

talk about a run on post.

Originally posted by PVS
i know there was a thread on this, but alas they changed the search function and i cant find it.

what are the stupidest tactics for debating you have seen?
[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.

example:

one which has been reoccuring very often is what i will refer to as "run with the analogy". this is a tactic where, when an opponent shoots out an abstract analogy to illustrate their pattern of logic, the poster will ignore that it was simply an analogy and run with it, accusing the opponent of making a direct comparison...all the time completely dodging the point, imho very much on purpose.

poster 1: you shouldnt just get pregnant without knowing what you're getting into. parenting is a heavy responsibility. to go about it in a rush and without proper planning would be like running through traffic blindfolded.

poster 2: omg how can you compare parenting with running through traffic? how stupid. only an idiot would compare the two (on and on)

i can think of a million of them, but lets hear your observations.

oh yeah, most important: please do not quote logical fallacies. those who would understand already know them, and those who dont know are most likely too set in their own silly ways to ever care to learn them, as they are the often the ones who gleefully commit them. [/B]

I couldn't agree with you more. Pisses me off.

only an idiot can be so close minded as to not recognize that analogies and hypothetical situations have their place in a good debate.

Idiotic debating tactic: Arguing against as many poeple as you can in a thread you didn't even make.

I hope you're reading that Schecter.

Originally posted by Schecter
hehe yeah, its cute how some people 'discover' that and 'expose' me.

For the love of all that is good in this world, please don't expose yourself.

As for idiotic debating tactic, go to the Conspiracey Forum for some real gems. The most often tactic used there is to post completely crap sources and then ignore what anyone around you says. And then there's the ever popular "copy & paste" that lets people thik they have no responsibility for what they post.

Ahhhh....good times.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Arguing against as many poeple as you can in a thread you didn't even make.

listen, i must have hurt your little feelings somehow, so why dont you go back to the otf and lick your wounds in 'your' threads. here in the GDF (as well as just about all KMC...and the interwebs) threads are simpy topics and not real estate.

you really should end this whining before you become the mascot for the topic, catch my drift? kthankbye

Originally posted by KharmaDog
For the love of all that is good in this world, please don't expose yourself.

*puts trenchcoat back on* 😮

Originally posted by KharmaDog
As for idiotic debating tactic, go to the Conspiracey Forum for some real gems. The most often tactic used there is to post completely crap sources and then ignore what anyone around you says. And then there's the ever popular "copy & paste" that lets people thik they have no responsibility for what they post.

Ahhhh....good times.

ill just take your word for it since i wont read a thing on that forum. i just cant stand being kneedeep in horseshit.
(here at the GDF its only ankle deep.)

TACTIC #3453246: "CHEAP TALK"

this is everywhere...like a plague. name is self explanatory.
the tactic is, when someone is presented with the reality that its at least possible that they either could not and would not practice what they preach, in regards to what they support, what they demand out of others, or even what they wish to see intusively enforced on others by law or otherwise, they throw up cheap talk.

so many widespread debates on social issues are crippled by this idiotic tactic. this is way bigger than kmc or even the interweb.
its basically a universal tool people use to be cold and careless to anyone far less fortunate and in need of help.

so....hypothesis....ok
lets say the debate centers around lower income single mothers. of course we see the attacks that they leech the system, dont do shit etc. something like: "if they need so much money why dont they get a third job, thats what i would do. im a parent and i'd do that. shit, i'd sell a kidney if i had to. blah blah"

basically posturing and strutting through literal/spoken word.
this is admitted into a debate as if their own hypothesis was credible
and considerable food for thought, equal to any statistics/figures.

and again, this is used ALOOOOOOOOOOT. in fact, it took me
a while to think up this random non-referencing scenario since every one that popped in my head was actually used here.

Don't you mean "Cheap Talk"? Or do you mean "cheep cheep" like a baby chicken?

im sorry, what? 😛

:edit: no thats on page 28

Originally posted by Schecter
TACTIC #3453246: "CHEAP TALK"

this is everywhere...like a plague. name is self explanatory.
the tactic is, when someone is presented with the reality that its at least possible that they either could not and would not practice what they preach, in regards to what they support, what they demand out of others, or even what they wish to see intusively enforced on others by law or otherwise, they throw up cheap talk.

so many widespread debates on social issues are crippled by this idiotic tactic. this is way bigger than kmc or even the interweb.
its basically a universal tool people use to be cold and careless to anyone far less fortunate and in need of help.

so....hypothesis....ok
lets say the debate centers around lower income single mothers. of course we see the attacks that they leech the system, dont do shit etc. something like: "if they need so much money why dont they get a third job, thats what i would do. im a parent and i'd do that. shit, i'd sell a kidney if i had to. blah blah"

basically posturing and strutting through literal/spoken word.
this is admitted into a debate as if their own hypothesis was credible
and considerable food for thought, equal to any statistics/figures.

and again, this is used ALOOOOOOOOOOT. in fact, it took me
a while to think up this random non-referencing scenario since every one that popped in my head was actually used here.

They need to get off their asses and get a better job, lazy mooches.