This is an illustration of the lengths to which one can be driven by the pressures of online debating. I compiled this guide based on painstaking (emphasis on "pain") observations of one particular character who (at the time of writing) posts regularly to the Wasteland of Wonders board. In the back of my mind was a vague kind of desperate optimism that told me, every now and then, that maybe I'd be able to teach this person something about themself. That was clouded, however, by a layer of sadistic cynicism that seems to have been slowly building up in my mind in recent times.
Introduction
This is intended to be a guide to handling yourself and facing hostile forces in an online debating environment. The techniques described here should help you overcome difficult situations so as to prove your correctness.
The overriding principle to bear in mind is that you are correct. There exists a variety of methods to enable you to demonstrate this, and at the same time leave egg on the faces of those who contradict the truth, as they deserve nothing less.
The remainder of this guide will take you through various situations that arise during the course of a debate. It will explain each one, and give suggestions as to the appropriate course of action.
1. Raising issues
When you have something to say, say it. However, remember to be concise. Elaboration is for those whose opinions are so convoluted that they have to think about them.
2. Dealing with smart arses
If someone fails to be convinced by your initial point, they are wrong. It stands to reason therefore that anything they say is flawed, so you should not waste your time justifying your knowledge, but rather give them some hints as to the source of their error.
If they subscribe to a different world view or philosophy to you, this is most likely the cause of their misunderstanding. You should endeavour to enlighten them as to the correct view of the world. If they still fail to be convinced, they are beyond help. Make sure they understand this, because it will be useful for them to be aware of it, and it will also serve to illustrate that you are the rightful winner of the argument.
The debate will usually continue after this, however, so it is likely you will need to employ many of the techniques detailed below.
3. Dealing with attacks
An attack can be characterised as any comment which portrays you in a negative light. The most effective way to respond to an attack is to send it back, using at least some of the same language, often repetitively. This catches people off guard, and will reveal you to be particularly intelligent.
Another effective strategy, should you be in a position to use it (and perhaps even if you aren't), is to make references to the disparity of age. It is a well understood and appreciated fact that wisdom and intelligence increase with age. Since youngsters lack experience in the real world, their opinions are obviously less valuable. Thus, should you be attacked by such a person, an oblique mention of their lack of knowledge and wisdom as a result of their age should aid in a successful counter-attack.
It is also conceivable that your opponents may chose a more insidious strategy, and accuse you of inciting an attack. They might even claim that you attacked them first. In such cases, it will be necessary to remind your opponents that they were the ultimate instigators, and that you were only responding to their arrogance.
4. Dealing with gangs
Often it is the case that a group of ignoramuses will attempt to gang up on you. Don't make the mistake of including only the people who actively disagree with you in this group, either. Always remember that if someone isn't with you, they're against you. Therefore, anyone who hasn't explicitly agreed with you must be part of the gang.
Such defiance of common sense, whether explicit or not, is despicable, and deserves to be dealt with in a firm and just manner. Furthermore, one of the favoured tricks employed by gang members is to claim that they're not part of the gang at all. This is clearly even worse, though it will be all but impossible to convince them of the truth. In order to avoid this, it is often necessary to avoid references to gang members by name. You should substitute "most", "many", "some" and/or "others" to refer to the gang, because nobody can argue with this.
In order to suppress their arrogance (see section 8), it will be necessary to periodically remind the gang how silly their ideas are, and that they have no credibility. This can be delicately inserted into your responses with wording such as, "Unlike some here...", "Most here seem to..." or some variation.
5. Navigating the debate
Debating is like navigating - you have to know which way to steer so that the ship doesn't run aground. There are three tricks to remember to avoid this fate:
- Never respond directly to a statement that, on the face of it, appears to completely disprove your argument. It's obviously incorrect (as per section 2), so you need not worry. However, putting a foot wrong here can cause trouble, so beware.
- Similarly, don't respond directly to naïve questions, to which an answer would unfairly give you the appearance of foolishness. Seek clarification on the nature and scope of the question, and remind the questioner that you've already addressed their misconceptions. If necessary, demand an answer from your opponent to the same or a different question as a quid pro quo. If they refuse to answer, hammer home that fact that they cannot. If they do answer, point out that their answer is wrong, because in so doing, you will prove your own position.
- Don't let your opponent focus on only one issue at a time. This can be especially hazardous, given (a) and (b). Keep your options open. If the debate turns in this direction, steer it away by introducing other, important details (see section 7(2)). If necessary, you can continue the debate solely on details that you introduce subsequent to the raising of the original issue.
6. Judging opinions
Much goes on "between the lines" in a debate, so it is important that you be able to gauge all your opponent's opinions from comments that may not necessarily relate to them. Though this may seem like an impossible task, there is a very simple rule to remember: if someone agrees with you on a particular issue, then you can safely assume that all their opinions accord with yours, whereas if they disagree, then they obviously think the opposite, and are thus incorrect. Since there can be only two opinions on any given subject ("for" and "against", or "right" and "wrong"), it follows that that your opponents each hold precisely the same, incorrect opinion. Therefore, remarks by one can be attributed fairly to all. Occasionally some may protest this, but they are obviously delusional and should be ignored.
7. The art of reason
If you become embroiled in a difficult issue, you may need to deploy some heavier weapons in your arsenal:
-
Analogies
These may appear to demand some creativity, but they are really a lot less complicated than others would have you believe. The basic purpose, of course, is to refute an idea based on a similar situation in which the truth is already accepted. The trick is finding another situation to compare to the one at hand. However, in reality, any situation can be used. All that is needed is a simple statement showing that it corresponds, and often even this can be done away with; if your opponent cannot figure out your analogy for themselves, then it will serve demonstrate their foolishness.
-
Technicalities
These are often misrepresented in a pejorative sense, when in fact they can form the basis of a sound defence of principles. Never miss an opportunity to demonstrate your opponent's ineptitude by showing their careless use of language, such as regarding the precise wording of official statements or documents. Whether such misuse affects their arguments is beside the point, of course.
-
Experience
Once again, as in section 3, references to age or experience (the two are basically synonymous) may be appropriate where your opponent obviously lacks the wisdom to understand the truth, of which you have endeavoured to inform him/her. All real knowledge follows from experience, and experience from age, so you need not concern yourself with the topic of the debate at this point. A numerical comparison of ages will, in itself, give you the intellectual upper hand, regardless of your actual exposure to the issue.
8. Keeping the lid on
Prevention is better than cure. As alluded to variously throughout the preceding sections of this guide, reminding others of their naïvety can be a valuable tool for pre-empting any unreasonable or hostile remarks. However, in order to maintain a deserved image of calm, reasonable superiority, it is also necessary not to place too much emphasis on the fact of your reminding them. To this end, it is useful to virtually brush off your own remarks, to give them the appearance of an afterthought - something that obviously doesn't trouble you in the least, but is of dire importance for your opponents.
You can employ such phrases as "By the way..." (shortened to "BTW..." to additionally draw attention to the fact that the expanded form represents more effort than your opponents are worth) in order to set aside such a reminder as a footnote to the main body of your argument. Also, by combining what could have been several sentences taking in a number of separate issues into a single sentence, you can effectively reduce the apparent amount of effort taken to craft the comment. Thus, you can easily convey the reality that you have far more important things to worry about than the personal flaws of your opponents, while not detracting from the actual significance of your remarks.
Conclusion
It is hoped that this guide has been successful in outlining the techniques available to combat the foolishness that pervades so much of popular opinion, and that you will derive relief and amusement from applying them.