PDA

View Full Version : Arguing on the Internet - A higher awareness always wins!!




hard@work
11-20-2007, 10:19 PM
Amongst those of us who cherish the true spirit of debate there is one consistent truth. That is simply put, the weakest rebuttal is the insult of your opponent. It is not only considered a failure to rebutt your opponent, it is considered a negative mark on your abilities lowering yourself below your opponent. It is not often understood by those who debate, however by those who professionally debate (i.e. the media outlets) it is well understood. What you should understand is that those who do understand insult is the least valid argument will use your inexperience against you in this regard. You see it every day on television "discussion" panels, radio broadcasts, and blogs / forums. Ideas that you may or may not even agree with are consistently ridiculed while the individuals who hold them are insulted. The people who are on your television that spend time making these insults are pandering to the ignorant side of their viewership fully aware that they do not need to argue against the idea if they just discredit it by insulting it.

The truth about this tactic is that it is intentional. It is not that those who have spent their lives earning their place on the media spotlight are inexperienced in logical debate and idealist rhetoric. They are very aware that to truly promote or combat an idea you must do so with reason and logic. It is an intentional attempt to mislead without having to fight the idea which encourages this nefarious tactic. This is the problem with American politics today, and this is the great sin of the American offline media system. Unfortunately, we can see this effect even more prevalently online ... and sometimes we do ourselves fall victim to this tactic.

Some individuals both online and offline however are not necessarily consciously insulting the idea. They simply cannot respond with a proper argument, either because they are unable or much more importantly - they do not understand or even have strong faith in their position. When one individual cannot fight an idea with reason they will always fall back on insult in self defense. It is important to understand this simple psychology so that you do not become prey to it yourself, either in falling into this trap yourself or allowing someone who does to win the debate based on emotion. Simply remember the best response to childishness is to be adult. Consistently you will win fights on the net if you are responding to crass behavior by shrugging it off and discussing logical points. So, as a very adept forum troll and flame warrior I would like to inform those of you who are canvassing the online world on a few tactics.

Remember, the battle fought is not against the disinformation agent or misinformed voter. The battle is being fought for the opinion of the readers themselves.

Whenever you are responding to an insult or misleading statement you must understand first that you are not replying to the individual who is blind with whatever emotion guides them. You are replying to the readers themselves, it is their support you must first attempt to gain. Hopefully in doing so you will win the heart or at least the respect of the attacker / disinformation agent. However this should never be your goal!! Your goal when posting, commenting, discussing, or debating publicly is not to win the argument against the person who disagrees. It is to win those who are witness to the debate. You do not have to defeat the individual you are debating directly. You have to defeat them indirectly by posting arguments that are more thought out, more logical, more friendly, and ultimately more correct.

If you are witness of or subject of an attack or insult do not bother getting angry. Get happy, you just won the debate!! Now is the time to strike like a Vulcan (think Mr. Spock from Star Trek) and raise your position higher than they can reach. Now is your chance to attack with reason against insult, and this will win the voters first and foremost. In order to do this however you should have your points ready on each issue. Even if you disagree with Dr. Paul on that issue, you should know his positions so you can explain why you respect him so much even though you disagree. One great resource I use in debating with logic is the RonPaulLibrary.com website.

http://www.RonPaulLibrary.com

One of the more dangerous attackers out there is the cynical and informed voter or pundit. These are the types that know their history, know their policy, and regardless of your views honestly (but bitterly) disagree with you. When faced with these opponents you have other tools to use aside from merely honesty, logic, and reason. There is another weapon greater than all of these combined if you place yourself on what is called the moral highground. This can be a tricky tactic to use however as this "highground" is interpreted by the readers, not by you. There is a method of mixing logical statements about policies in with the key factor here: idealism. Idealism is an incredibly powerful weapon if used properly, and an incredibly destructive tactic if used where those ideals would not be either shared or respected (it is important to understand the difference). These are the types of attacks we see usually from site owners and staff from web properties such as wonkette or redstate. These low traffic blogs are the frontline of the internet attack teams ran by our opponents: pretty much everyone that wants to maintain their corrupt grasp on power. So it is very healthy to understand that these attacks are a sign of weakness to be exploited. However the danger still lies that these are the individuals who are aware that the readers we are both after can be won with insult especially if there is no rebuttal to be allowed. That means if we cannot respond, they can win merely by insulting us to people who will not hear our side. This is why it is important to be active in spreading positive logical information whenever you can!

To sum this all up:

Be the bigger person at all times. And help to foster the new spirit of our movement the proper way. Disarm the enemy at all turns by speaking truth at all times. Never fall into the traps that the enemy lays for us, and never fall into the traps that they themselves fall into. And ultimately the way that Ron Paul would handle a controversy is the same way we all should. Think about why we love Ron Paul, flaws and all. Honesty, integrity, respect, idealism, and practicing what is preached.

Represent this man's life's work with a reflection of his values and we will win this fight. Our greatest weapon will be our outright rejection of the bipolarity and polarization that the neocons and neolibs have nearly destroyed this country with.

Freedom brings us together. All of us.

francisco
11-20-2007, 10:23 PM
Amongst those of us who cherish the true spirit of debate there is one consistent truth. That is simply put, the weakest rebuttal is the insult of your opponent. It is not only considered a failure to rebutt your opponent, it is considered a negative mark on your abilities lowering yourself below your opponent. It is not often understood by those who debate, however by those who professionally debate (i.e. the media outlets) it is well understood. What you should understand is that those who do understand insult is the least valid argument will use your inexperience against you in this regard. You see it every day on television "discussion" panels, radio broadcasts, and blogs / forums. Ideas that you may or may not even agree with are consistently ridiculed while the individuals who hold them are insulted. The people who are on your television that spend time making these insults are pandering to the ignorant side of their viewership fully aware that they do not need to argue against the idea if they just discredit it by insulting it.

The truth about this tactic is that it is intentional. It is not that those who have spent their lives earning their place on the media spotlight are inexperienced in logical debate and idealist rhetoric. They are very aware that to truly promote or combat an idea you must do so with reason and logic. It is an intentional attempt to mislead without having to fight the idea which encourages this nefarious tactic. This is the problem with American politics today, and this is the great sin of the American offline media system. Unfortunately, we can see this effect even more prevalently online ... and sometimes we do ourselves fall victim to this tactic.

Some individuals both online and offline however are not necessarily consciously insulting the idea. They simply cannot respond with a proper argument, either because they are unable or much more importantly - they do not understand or even have strong faith in their position. When one individual cannot fight an idea with reason they will always fall back on insult in self defense. It is important to understand this simple psychology so that you do not become prey to it yourself, either in falling into this trap yourself or allowing someone who does to win the debate based on emotion. Simply remember the best response to childishness is to be adult. Consistently you will win fights on the net if you are responding to crass behavior by shrugging it off and discussing logical points. So, as a very adept forum troll and flame warrior I would like to inform those of you who are canvassing the online world on a few tactics.

Remember, the battle fought is not against the disinformation agent or misinformed voter. The battle is being fought for the opinion of the readers themselves.

Whenever you are responding to an insult or misleading statement you must understand first that you are not replying to the individual who is blind with whatever emotion guides them. You are replying to the readers themselves, it is their support you must first attempt to gain. Hopefully in doing so you will win the heart or at least the respect of the attacker / disinformation agent. However this should never be your goal!! Your goal when posting, commenting, discussing, or debating publicly is not to win the argument against the person who disagrees. It is to win those who are witness to the debate. You do not have to defeat the individual you are debating directly. You have to defeat them indirectly by posting arguments that are more thought out, more logical, more friendly, and ultimately more correct.

If you are witness of or subject of an attack or insult do not bother getting angry. Get happy, you just won the debate!! Now is the time to strike like a Vulcan (think Mr. Spock from Star Trek) and raise your position higher than they can reach. Now is your chance to attack with reason against insult, and this will win the voters first and foremost. In order to do this however you should have your points ready on each issue. Even if you disagree with Dr. Paul on that issue, you should know his positions so you can explain why you respect him so much even though you disagree. One great resource I use in debating with logic is the RonPaulLibrary.com website.

http://www.RonPaulLibrary.com

One of the more dangerous attackers out there is the cynical and informed voter or pundit. These are the types that know their history, know their policy, and regardless of your views honestly (but bitterly) disagree with you. When faced with these opponents you have other tools to use aside from merely honesty, logic, and reason. There is another weapon greater than all of these combined if you place yourself on what is called the moral highground. This can be a tricky tactic to use however as this "highground" is interpreted by the readers, not by you. There is a method of mixing logical statements about policies in with the key factor here: idealism. Idealism is an incredibly powerful weapon if used properly, and an incredibly destructive tactic if used where those ideals would not be either shared or respected (it is important to understand the difference). These are the types of attacks we see usually from site owners and staff from web properties such as wonkette or redstate. These low traffic blogs are the frontline of the internet attack teams ran by our opponents: pretty much everyone that wants to maintain their corrupt grasp on power. So it is very healthy to understand that these attacks are a sign of weakness to be exploited. However the danger still lies that these are the individuals who are aware that the readers we are both after can be won with insult especially if there is no rebuttal to be allowed. That means if we cannot respond, they can win merely by insulting us to people who will not hear our side. This is why it is important to be active in spreading positive logical information whenever you can!

To sum this all up:

Be the bigger person at all times. And help to foster the new spirit of our movement the proper way. Disarm the enemy at all turns by speaking truth at all times. Never fall into the traps that the enemy lays for us, and never fall into the traps that they themselves fall into. And ultimately the way that Ron Paul would handle a controversy is the same way we all should. Think about why we love Ron Paul, flaws and all. Honesty, integrity, respect, idealism, and practicing what is preached.

Represent this man's life's work with a reflection of his values and we will win this fight. Our greatest weapon will be our outright rejection of the bipolarity and polarization that the neocons and neolibs have nearly destroyed this country with.

Freedom brings us together. All of us.

Another voice of reason! It's spreading!

jenius
11-20-2007, 10:28 PM
... so ... many... words...

... ADD setting in! ...

hard@work
11-20-2007, 10:31 PM
... so ... many... words...

... ADD setting in! ...


I have a pamphlette prepared for those that still watch television. It is only three paragraphs with no words over four syllables.

:p

ronpaulitician
11-20-2007, 10:34 PM
Be the bigger person at all times.
Amen

hard@work
11-21-2007, 10:39 AM
morning bump

:)

me3
11-21-2007, 10:49 AM
True words.

There are a lot of ways to disarm, and reduce an opponent with truth and clarity. Namecalling always signals weakness and desperation in an argument.

hard@work
11-21-2007, 02:21 PM
afternoon bump.

10thAmendmentMan
11-21-2007, 02:24 PM
Most people on the internet just want to yell at you and tell you why you are wrong rather than listen to you and interact (e.g. debate). To keep from going insane, remember that many people will completely ignore whatever you say. And now, because this is pertinent:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3144/arguingoverinternetyr9.jpg

Cindy
11-21-2007, 02:25 PM
I've been participating in debate forums for years, and though, the one with higher awareness always believes they have the win, to the audience, the one with facts they can back up wins.

It's great to be a Paul supporter at a Political debate forum I belong to. When you are with Paul, you have the facts and truth at your back.

The best others can do are weak straw man arguments against him.

The bottom line is that anyone who attacks Paul, attacks the U.S. Constitution. They loose everytime.

hard@work
11-21-2007, 02:29 PM
I've been participating in debate forums for years, and though, the one with higher awareness always believes they have the win, to the audience, the one with facts they can back up wins.


Well Cindy, that's pretty much what I said. Except I am suggesting that a higher awareness includes the recognition of the latter. In fact I would say that it cannot exist without.

hard@work
11-21-2007, 04:45 PM
midafternoon bump for Mona Charon:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmU0ZDFhYjIxM2VlMTEzMjkyY2ZiNDA3Y2RiZmU1YTc=

and a point proven by Jesse Benton!!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJmOWM2ZGQzNzAzOTQwYWJlMDg4YjJiMjE4MWRlZTY

hard@work
11-21-2007, 10:57 PM
Late night bump in honor of Mona Charon.