Like to argue over the internet? You need to read this first:

[raspberrypi]

https://bookofbadarguments.com/AIBOBA-white.pdf

Heres a book about the fallacies that people like to use when they debate things over the internet. The book is NOT about global warming (lets shut down that argument before it starts right now)BUT it really seems to apply to the antiscience/antiglobal warming crowd.

My favorite is:
"Al Gore has a heated pool. Al Gore is a hypocrite".
 That never made sense to me because, first its an ad homonym attack; attacking the content of the messengers character instead of attacking the message. Its kind of lazy and seems like a last resort argument. Like when Einsteins work was called "Jewish physics" and dismissed because the conveyor of the idea belonged to an "undesirable" religion.
 The second part of that argument that doesn't make sense is that for Al gore to be a hypocrite then you have to acknowledge what he's saying as true. If you really think he is a hypocrite you have to admit that his heated pool, which is assumed that its ultimately powered from coal fired electrical plants, that is using more electricity from this source is making more CO2, and more CO2 is causing global warming. When you call him a hypocrite you are agreeing with the fact that global warming from CO2 is real, otherwise hes not a hypocrite because his electricity usage would have no impact on CO2 levels. So this argument shoots itself in the foot.

Once you start to see the tactics people use it becomes very easy to shoot down what they are saying. But 98% of the arguing on the internet comes down to name calling, and just ignoring when someone asks you to prove what you are saying. "Yeah well,YOU ARE stupid". Its fun to watch Bill Oreiley and see how simple his arguments really are. He rarely gets into an actual logical debate and will find some little detail the person screwed up on then just derail the whole argument in that direction. Hes really not that good at arguing, he just controls the conversation well and almost all of his arguments fall into the same pattern.

[raspberrypi]

SOP for Bill oRiely: He was debating with some fellow conservative and she called him a liar, because he did say something that totally contradicted himself. But she screwed up and said she had the date and time of the statement and starts fumbling through some papers trying to find it. He quickly uses this as his chance to shift the argument away from the fact that he was lying and just starts saying how unprepared she was and how she needed to tell him when exactly he said it, like that actually mattered. The argument became about the date, he never really denies saying it, because he doesn't have to, he led her onto a new argument about when he said it. When he lied didn't matter, all that mattered was that he did lie, but since she fucked up this little detail he exploited that and she kind of lost the debate; kind of because he did lie and didn't have any good retort to make.

[Falcon69]

You know, I still believe in the Retard Rule.

"Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, Even though you win, You're still a retard."

No offense, of course, to those who participate in the Special Olympics or are otherwise mentally challenged. It's just an analogy.

[raspberrypi]

You know, I still believe in the Retard Rule.

"Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, Even though you win, You're still a retard."

No offense, of course, to those who participate in the Special Olympics or are otherwise mentally challenged. It's just an analogy.

Everyone gets a metal too! Back when forums first came out I used to go on this car forum that had a huge off topic. This one couple in their 40's (old enough to know better) took the internet a little bit too seriously. The husband worked at quest diagnostic and decided to use the data base to look up people on the forum. He then posted their info online. So one guy he did it to called up quest and showed them what he was doing. He got fired. He lost his job because he got pissed at someone making fun of him over the internet. I also heard of this one guy in his 50's who started calling up people employers and talking shit about them, as retribution for them making fun of him on the forum. I just don't see how you can not separate out real life and the internet. If you find a good forum sometimes you can have a structured debate. I'm incredibly good at debating in real life mainly from playing devils advocate on the internet, but finding a worthy adversary is incredibly hard.

[Mr. Scram]

I just don't see how you can not separate out real life and the internet.

Are they that different? The examples you used show people utterly overreacting to something minor. People do that in real life too. If you start a fight with everyone that calls you names on the street, you will suffer the consequences too. These people were idiots, regardless of the medium

[raspberrypi]

I just don't see how you can not separate out real life and the internet.

Are they that different? The examples you used show people utterly overreacting to something minor. People do that in real life too. If you start a fight with everyone that calls you names on the street, you will suffer the consequences too. These people were idiots, regardless of the medium

But the internet literally has an off button. You can make it all go away by closing your browser or just not going to that site. Unlike real life there are zero consequences for shutting it off.

[metrologist]

The Internet is just a different communication medium. Consequences of not engaging with the world likely have similar effect.

[Mr. Scram]

But the internet literally has an off button. You can make it all go away by closing your browser or just not going to that site. Unlike real life there are zero consequences for shutting it off.

I know it is a little known life hack, but you can walk away in real life too I have seen too many idiots getting into conflicts over nothing. Step back, turn around, walk away. Unless someone is physically chasing and assaulting you, that should work every time.

[Avacee]

Always remember the simple rules:
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Never argue with an idiot. Observers might not be able to you apart.
Idiots use the internet to validate or spread their opinions and biases. Not to listen to yours.
Winning an argument against a "special" person is nothing special.
Why spend your own time educating idiots? They might become your competition. Better to leave them an idiot.
If you get into an argument with an idiot then you are an idiot.

[james_s]

"I wish I'd spent more time engaging in pointless arguments with people who's mind I'll never change" said nobody ever while reminiscing on their deathbed.

[Falcon69]

The sad thing is.....There have been several suicides of younger people, because of arguments or 'teasing' done on the internet.

[raspberrypi]

"I wish I'd spent more time engaging in pointless arguments with people who's mind I'll never change" said nobody ever while reminiscing on their deathbed.

Best quote ever...
BUT
I think the youtube personality "Thunderfoot" might disagree. I thought he was smart (His video on why NaK explodes was excellent) until I saw he had a 47 part video called "Creationist are stupid" Way to drag yourself down. Furthermore, in the video I watched hes talking to this jesus guy about evolution, and hes just talking over his head. He probably had a 90ish IQ and no clue about scientific method of how biology works. It was like they weren't debating each other because neither would refute or even acknowledge the other persons point. His other non science video drone on and on about this crazy feminist girl who complained to the united nations that people were making fun of her on face book. I think its some sexual thing he has for her, normal people don't become that obsessed over someone who's obviously using the attention to get money, which to her is way more important then her cause. But yet he gives her tons of attention, nobody would give a shit about her if he stopped making videos about her. I bet that some of the money she raised came from people seeing her on his videos who didn't like his point of view and donated out of spite.

[TheWelly888]

Another good reason never to discuss politics on-line is that most political ideas have from little to no objective evidence to actually back them up.

I get annoyed by people re-tweeting stuff complaining about how bad the vote is for the country many months after the vote was cast by the country!

[mrflibble]

Another good reason never to discuss politics on-line is that most political ideas have from little to no objective evidence to actually back them up.

Fixed!
Improved!
Blatantly inserted my opinion on politics into your quote!

[timb]

You know, I still believe in the Retard Rule.

"Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, Even though you win, You're still a retard."

No offense, of course, to those who participate in the Special Olympics or are otherwise mentally challenged. It's just an analogy.

Regardless of intellect an Olympian deserves better. If you didn't want to offend I suggest choosing less offensive analogies. Argument by analogy is frequently weak because the argument can never be stronger than the analogy. I'm at a complete loss to understand the point of your analogy.

Oh come on, the poster didn't come up with that, it's got to be as old as usenet itself. Lighten up.

[Mr. Scram]

Regardless of intellect an Olympian deserves better. If you didn't want to offend I suggest choosing less offensive analogies. Argument by analogy is frequently weak because the argument can never be stronger than the analogy. I'm at a complete loss to understand the point of your analogy.

It is a pretty common saying on the ol' interweb.

Analogies are useful, because they tend to filter the noise out. The argument does not necessarily have to be weaker

[Kuro]

Regardless of intellect an Olympian deserves better. If you didn't want to offend I suggest choosing less offensive analogies. Argument by analogy is frequently weak because the argument can never be stronger than the analogy. I'm at a complete loss to understand the point of your analogy.

It is a pretty common saying on the ol' interweb.

Analogies are useful, because they tend to filter the noise out. The argument does not necessarily have to be weaker

So because it's old and common, it's ok? I thought this thread was about just that kind of balony arguments.

But hey, you're right it is old. I heard it before and read about a guy who showed it to his Down brother. He asked if he felt bad about it and the brother replied that it did hurt. But when asked if he wanted to reply to the poster, the Down brother said: nah, he's just an idiot.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[mrflibble]

Oh the irony. 

"Arguing on the internet about arguing on the internet is like the Extra Special Olympics. Even though you win, you're still a meta-retard."

(short notation metard?)

[Mr. Scram]

So because it's old and common, it's ok?

I never said such a thing. I just don't care enough to get my panties in a twist. If I could hazard a guess, most Olympians and 'retards' probably feel similar, as they have other fish to fry.

I love how this thread is turning into a prime example of the subject of the thread 

[G0HZU]

The lesson I've learned about arguing on the internet is that poor conclusions derived from poorly conducted experiments by the 'man in a shed' always defeat the laws of physics on internet forums. Especially RF/radio based forums. If he/she is a radio ham and has some buddies online then the laws of physics can't compete against poor practice, myths and groupthink.

[mrflibble]

Eye of beholder subset: {beauty, meaning, lack of meaning, pointiness, pointlessness}

Treatise on mental attributes and their use in linguistic constructs:

And in case of extra angsty existential dread:

Well, that's cleared that up.

[Mr. Scram]

Treatise on mental attributes and their use in linguistic constructs:

Dear spaghetti monster, this thread is turning into gold!

[Falcon69]

You know, I still believe in the Retard Rule.

"Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, Even though you win, You're still a retard."

No offense, of course, to those who participate in the Special Olympics or are otherwise mentally challenged. It's just an analogy.

Regardless of intellect an Olympian deserves better. If you didn't want to offend I suggest choosing less offensive analogies. Argument by analogy is frequently weak because the argument can never be stronger than the analogy. I'm at a complete loss to understand the point of your analogy.

I'm NOT going to argue with you, as much as you try. 

[rrinker]

 Look, I came here for an argument, I'm not just going to stand for this!

[retrolefty]

Look, I came here for an argument, I'm not just going to stand for this!

 Arguments are next door, this is complaints.