Internet Argument Techniques A bit of fun with a funny old article from a humour site, Cracked.com, on the most commonly used argument techniques on the Internet. No no, didn't your momma say it's rude to point fingers at people... Rewrote some of the examples to remove the strong language as well as making them a lot more 'local', so to speak - marked with a ^ #12 is my own as I find this to be prevalent in all the forums I've been to. Original article here. Winning By Losing However badly you have disproven or embarrassed this person, it turns out it was part of their master plan to get that reaction out of you, to prove some kind of point they can't seem to explain. They honesy think that despite flailing uselessly in making their original argument, they are smooth enough to convince people they are a master puppeteer pulling everyone's strings. 2. The Pity Riposte When someone starts throwing out words like "droll" and "pathetic" and "amused" and generally trying to talk like a wealthy Bond villain, he comes across less like the confident, cigar-smoking fellow he is imagining and more like a man who as been pantsed attempting to to convince clothed people that they are the ones that should feel foolish. 3. The Backtrack If you can't unsay something you just realised is horribly wrong, the next best thing is to claim you never said it. This is an extremely ballsy manoeuver on a forum without an edit function, and usually forces reliance on the old, "Oh, you just misintepreted what I said" manoeuveur. 4. Super Tunnel Vision So they've dismantled your argument sand shredded all your points. Have they taken everything away from you? No! You still have your dig- no, wait, that's gone. There must be something though! Aha! Someone mentioned you made a grammar error. Attack it with all your might! Surely this is the foundation of all their arguments. Don't get distracted by the evidence or anything, man! Eyes on the prize! 5. Be Your Own Wingman Creating a second account to agree with your first one is most often called "sockpuppetting", but "wingman" sounds sadder. The "reverse wingman" is a variation where the second account jumps on the bandwagon making fun of the first one, apparently in an attempt to help the second account to become "the popular one" that the posters will continue to use. 6. Hotel California Guest They keep checking out but they never leave. Sometimes they demand to be banned or have their account deleted because this is a way of talking like you are done with the site without actually having to stop posting and give up the last word. This also sets them up for item #1 above when they can claim their banning was just what they wanted and you played into their hands. 7. The Innocent Question Classic passive-aggression technique with the easy fallback of "I was just asking questions!" which play critics off as suppressors of ideas and critical thinking. Questions include, "Can this 9/11 video I just stumbled upon be real???" or "Why is it taboo to just explore what makes different races smarter than others?" See, because they're not saying one race is better than another. They're ASKING. 8. First Amendment Reintepretation Activist judges have nothing on internet people, who reintepret an amendment guaranteeing freedom from government repression as a law protecting them from any criticism of their ideas and even requiring other people to spend money creating and maintaining a platform for them to get their ideas out. Strangely, this guardian angel of a law is only meant to protect them and not their critics. 9. The Passive-Aggressive Apology What better way of looking like a big man than by saying you're sorry? You don't actually have to be sorry, or admit you did anything wrong, or stop arguing or insulting people. As long as you use the word "sorry" it's clearly an apology, and anyone who complains that you haven't stopped doing what you're apologising for, and haven't even admitted it, is a bad person who can't let things go. 10. Unbelievable Credentials What proof do you have that this guy is not, as he claims, a physicist, a doctor, a Supreme Court Justice, a former Delta Force assassin, a Hollywood director, and Strunk of Strunk & White? It's the internet, you'll never be able to prove he isn't who he says! Well, except for the little matter of him not knowing the slightest thing about any of those subjects. Curses! 11. The Edgy Card This is a variant of Super Tunnel Vision above, but it's so prevalent it need special mention. Do you dislike one of this person's jokes or artworks? It's not because it's bad or poorly done or doesn't make any sense. It's because YOU DON'T GET IT, MAN. It's too ironic for you to understand, or possibly so offensive that your puritan sensibilities reject it. It must be one or the other. 12. The Source of A Source Want to make an opinion that no one can prove or disprove? Latch it to a source that no one would ever meet, see or hear. Link it with some authority that no one would bother to go verify and voila, you got the real deal! Add a dash of disclaimer to wash your hands off any possible outrage or controversy that might follow, blaming the source whom probably doesn't exist. Be as ambiguous as possible, maybe one of the claims might be true.
I'm not sure which, Chris but I think the First Amendment Interpretation Personally I'd admit if I got it wrong but rarely try to play hero when I know there is no defense. Trying to backtrack when it's clear you're wrong is bad enough, doing it whilst being a douchebag is worst.
