How To Win a Forum Argument

[Fins]

Wow, I never thought about doing that. I could try that sometimes...if I knew what it was, I mean.

It is something you are either born with, or you are not.

 

[BitterPill]

I am preparing to write about lies, and I'm giving the subject some thought since it's not enough to simply posit a blanket condemnation of lies. For example, I lied yesterday, twice if anyone is counting.

It seems my beater-truck, the one I just got done claiming I will never give up, ironically blew a head-gasket, and I barely made it to my mechanic who promptly called me and quoted $1800 to have it fixed. Fair enough.

So I called another nearby mechanic who seems to enjoy a good reputation, and he said he'd look into the matter and return my call. An hour passed, and he returned my call: $2800.

I thanked him for looking into the matter for me and returning my call so quickly, but considering the cost I decided to park the truck in my driveway while trying to fix it myself.

Then I went ahead and asked my mechanic to proceed.

While that is pondered, I want to say I'm a bit surprised by the interest in my op-ed, and I see that several people have raised questions or posed reservations; I welcome such input, yet I'm going to refrain from responding until I have completely finished my piece. I feel compelled to keep my eye on the target, so please stay tuned.

And I thank you all for the interest.

 

[Caroljo]

You know you've won a forum argument when the best your adversary can do is ridicule your nickname,avatar or grammar or engage in off-topic personal attacks. There is a lotta that in this forum.

There are some (on both sides here) that need to understand this. It's true & it happens every day here.

 

[TheResister]

There are some (on both sides here) that need to understand this. It's true & it happens every day here.

Have you ever been the victim of off topic personal attacks? Have you ever had a poster post absolute lies about you and then watch other posters join in the attack simply on the basis that they disagreed with you on an issue so, they think personal attacks are somehow true?

The more you do to set the record straight, the more the trolls post rubbish AND if you ignore it, the subject works much like the legal system - anything not denied is deemed to be true. So, you're screwed if you do and screwed if you don't.

There might be a way to respond to these professional Internet Commandos and, if there is one, I'm willing to learn.

 

[resident_evil]

I want to start an ongoing op-ed on how to win forum arguments. I'll fill in some more of my ideas with a few anecdotes as I go along, but I thought I'd start with my most basic and far-reaching observation: occupy the high ground. It is a great advantage in both the tactical and strategic sense.

There are, of course, different high grounds: the moral, the correct, the vulgar, and there may be others, but I'll deal with these three main ones.

First, in the moral dimension - by far the most important, there are certain considerations that bear examination. For example, if one is arguing with an anti-Semite, a racist, a misogynist or a bigot in general, one already owns the high ground assuming one is not also similarly prejudiced. Of course one's bigoted opponents realize this and may try to move one off that high moral ground, make one the bigot by claiming, for example, that Democrats, and I'm a Democrat, were the original racists is an attack that one often encounters, but they can't hope to occupy that high ground themselves, so one simply needs to remind any accuser of when that was and what happened since. Democrats elected a Black president, and I'm a Democrat who voted for him twice.

That should shut them up, and a sensible yet bigoted opponent, if there is such a thing, will quickly abandon that line of attack.

Of course, it helps immeasurably if one also abandons one's own prejudices, a task not easily accomplished, but one well worth the effort. I say this because a hypocrite can never hold the high ground, hypocrisy being a poor and undesirable example of the human condition to say the least, so it is imperative that one abandons prejudice and be forever on the lookout for it cropping-up in one's thinking since thought begets action - be brutally honest with one's self.

Now, before I go on to, I feel I should address hypocrisy more directly, and I will shortly....

You'd be better served if you wrote a thread on, "Truly allowing yourself to be convinced by another's argument before discounting it."

 

[Jets]

Good thread BP.

Part of the problem is our tendency to dig our heels in to defend our POVs. We are all guilty of this at times because people have egos to some degree or another. One style I have adopted is to deal with posts as discussions and not debates. The reason being is that almost by design, it encourages one to prove the other person wrong and spend less time listening to find areas of agreement. Debates tend to get heated faster resulting more often than not in personalizing comments and flamethrowing. Instead of making accusations and tossing out incorrect assumptions about people, we need to ask more questions and try to remember that being anonymous should not mean forgetting that we are all human beings on a keyboard and would not speak to one another face to face the same way.

My two cents...

 

[SW48]

I want to start an ongoing op-ed on how to win forum arguments. I'll fill in some more of my ideas with a few anecdotes as I go along, but I thought I'd start with my most basic and far-reaching observation: occupy the high ground. It is a great advantage in both the tactical and strategic sense.

There are, of course, different high grounds: the moral, the correct, the vulgar, and there may be others, but I'll deal with these three main ones.

First, in the moral dimension - by far the most important, there are certain considerations that bear examination. For example, if one is arguing with an anti-Semite, a racist, a misogynist or a bigot in general, one already owns the high ground assuming one is not also similarly prejudiced. Of course one's bigoted opponents realize this and may try to move one off that high moral ground, make one the bigot by claiming, for example, that Democrats, and I'm a Democrat, were the original racists is an attack that one often encounters, but they can't hope to occupy that high ground themselves, so one simply needs to remind any accuser of when that was and what happened since. Democrats elected a Black president, and I'm a Democrat who voted for him twice.

That should shut them up, and a sensible yet bigoted opponent, if there is such a thing, will quickly abandon that line of attack.

Of course, it helps immeasurably if one also abandons one's own prejudices, a task not easily accomplished, but one well worth the effort. I say this because a hypocrite can never hold the high ground, hypocrisy being a poor and undesirable example of the human condition to say the least, so it is imperative that one abandons prejudice and be forever on the lookout for it cropping-up in one's thinking since thought begets action - be brutally honest with one's self.

Now, before I go on to, I feel I should address hypocrisy more directly, and I will shortly....

Not sure about who wins a forum debate but we know who loses. The losers of a forum debate start name calling or posting with very little content.

 

[JackDallas]

Not sure about who wins a forum debate but we know who loses. The losers of a forum debate start name calling or posting with very little content.

You (*^^%$$@$&()) You don't know what the hell you're &%#@)()_)^$#@ shit, )*^$#@@#%^&* F**king &^$#^&_+_)_* dipshit, ($@@^&.
You mean like that?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You (*^^%$$@$&()) You don't know what the hell you're &%#@)()_)^$#@ shit, )*^$#@@#%^&* F**king &^$#^&_+_)_* dipshit, ($@@^&.
You mean like that?

Resisting Kindly Debate

That's positively Arkadian.

 

[SW48]

You (*^^%$$@$&()) You don't know what the hell you're &%#@)()_)^$#@ shit, )*^$#@@#%^&* F**king &^$#^&_+_)_* dipshit, ($@@^&.
You mean like that?

correct

 

[PhilFish]

Like this...with crushing facts.. Here in simple terms:

Debater 1 : Obama reduced the debt.

Debater 2 : No, the debt rose under his administration

Debater 1 : Actually, he did

Debater 2: The debt is $20 trillion dollars.

Debater 1: Bush did it. Oh, and your mom.

<Win> Debater 2

 

[TheResister]

Like this...with crushing facts.. Here in simple terms:

Debater 1 : Obama reduced the debt.

Debater 2 : No, the debt rose under his administration

Debater 1 : Actually, he did

Debater 2: The debt is $20 trillion dollars.

Debater 1: Bush did it. Oh, and your mom.

<Win> Debater 2

The real trolls don't do it like that. They lace their criticisms with LMAO, SMFH, and telling you you're wrong and any link you leave, they will claim means opposite of what it says. Some days you don't know how many people are even accessing the links and making up their own minds.

And, when trolls have a cheering section, focused more on the personalities than the facts being discussed, you have to wonder if the truth even matters.

I wish it were as cut and dried as you tried to make it out to be.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There are, of course, different high grounds: the moral, the correct, the vulgar, and there may be others, but I'll deal with these three main ones.

"The correct" seems to be the only correct one. Morals are subjective, and there is no need to be vulgar. The problem seems to be when the other person fails to be intellectually honest, they start using quotes out of context, declare extremest views as correct interpretation, claim to be more than what they are to attempt to look as though they are authoritative on the subject matter being discussed, claiming opinionated interpretation from blogs used as links as fact, etc.

Here is how one subjectively wins an argument on line ( my comments) :

I run into posters who have extreme ego problems. One poster may attack everyone he disagrees with. If he don't like you, EVERY post is laced with LMAO, SMFH, and whatever you quote (according to these beaming paragons of human virtue) means opposite of what you quoted. They lace their responses with words like inane, stupid, etc. In my mind they have to do that in order to hide the weakness of their own argument.

I would maintain that it is impossible for someone to be wrong in every post and on every topic. Hell, even a broken clock has the potential to be right twice a day.

Yet, those poseurs have their cheering section and it's hard to tell if you "won" any argument or even made your point. So, how do you handle the professional instigators?

When you quote from the past, you should make sure the quote means what you are trying to convey, i.e. the quote is from a prior discussion based on the same context as the actual discussion. EXAMPLE: If you quote Benjamin Franklin when discussing the 2nd Amendment or perceived government surveillance, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." you are then using that quote completely out of its context. The meaning of that quote has no bearing whatsoever upon the 2nd Amendment or government surveillance, in fact it has to do only with paying ones property taxes.

There is a type of poster and I've run across one or two. When I put them on ignore, they still posted in EVERY thread I participated in and in EVERY one of their posts, they would have nothing but negative comments aimed toward me. If I did nothing, the thread would get ignored by those participating because the trolling is nothing more than a personal attack on me.

Ignoring the individual didn't do the trick and responding only encourages trolls to stay on the Internet, 24 / 7 / 365 licking their chops and hoping for that opportunity to screw with your head. I don't think the OP has a method of dealing with that kind of poster.

You seem to like to use the word troll a lot, that shows you have no desire to listen or even see any errors you may have made. You then look as though you don't want a discussion, rather a soap box to express your ideals and if someone disagrees with you or your claim you then label them a troll.

The real trolls don't do it like that. They lace their criticisms with LMAO, SMFH, and telling you you're wrong and any link you leave, they will claim means opposite of what it says. Some days you don't know how many people are even accessing the links and making up their own minds.

And, when trolls have a cheering section, focused more on the personalities than the facts being discussed, you have to wonder if the truth even matters.

I wish it were as cut and dried as you tried to make it out to be.

You should quote the portion of the link that you believe is factual and credible especially if it has a cite to a credible source. If it is a link from a credible source, i.e. Academia, Studies, Historical Documents, Court cases, etc., than again context would come into play. If it is a link from an extremist blog or a blog that is doing nothing more than interjecting a subjective opinion or interpretation not in agreement with reality, than you probably don't have a leg to stand on. EXAMPLE: don't use a link like this and claim it as fact or correct in its interpetation http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm and not expect someone to laugh at you, because all it is is someones opinion that falls outside of reality (Academia, Court Opinion, recognized fact), it is an extremists POV.

If one wants to "win" a forum argument than one should use facts correctly, in context, and be intellectually honest.

 

[TheResister]

"The correct" seems to be the only correct one. Morals are subjective, and there is no need to be vulgar. The problem seems to be when the other person fails to be intellectually honest, they start using quotes out of context, declare extremest views as correct interpretation, claim to be more than what they are to attempt to look as though they are authoritative on the subject matter being discussed, claiming opinionated interpretation from blogs used as links as fact, etc.

Here is how one subjectively wins an argument on line ( my comments) :
When you quote from the past, you should make sure the quote means what you are trying to convey, i.e. the quote is from a prior discussion based on the same context as the actual discussion. EXAMPLE: If you quote Benjamin Franklin when discussing the 2nd Amendment or perceived government surveillance, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." you are then using that quote completely out of its context. The meaning of that quote has no bearing whatsoever upon the 2nd Amendment or government surveillance, in fact it has to do only with paying ones property taxes.

You seem to like to use the word troll a lot, that shows you have no desire to listen or even see any errors you may have made. You then look as though you don't want a discussion, rather a soap box to express your ideals and if someone disagrees with you or your claim you then label them a troll.

You should quote the portion of the link that you believe is factual and credible especially if it has a cite to a credible source. If it is a link from a credible source, i.e. Academia, Studies, Historical Documents, Court cases, etc., than again context would come into play. If it is a link from an extremist blog or a blog that is doing nothing more than interjecting a subjective opinion or interpretation not in agreement with reality, than you probably don't have a leg to stand on. EXAMPLE: don't use a link like this and claim it as fact or correct in its interpetation http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm and not expect someone to laugh at you, because all it is is someones opinion that falls outside of reality (Academia, Court Opinion, recognized fact), it is an extremists POV.

If one wants to "win" a forum argument than one should use facts correctly, in context, and be intellectually honest.

Here is the VERY dirtbag I had in mind throughout this thread. He should preach to us about honesty when this mother fucker has been banned on many sites for publishing shit that was personal - and then lying about it. Liquid Reigns is a filthy piece of shit and I'd gladly pay $1000 just to know who he really is.

The forums have provided a way for him to threaten, harass, and intimidate me for the past few years. He's a damn Internet bully and one day, we can weigh his bullshit for what it's worth.

Come out of the shadows you [Unwelcome language removed] maggot. The moderators and admins lied to me and I posted here - and that son of a bitch was NEVER banned... he just came back in another post and shut down the thread along with making more personal attacks.

Shoe's on the other foot mother fucker. If any of you believe a single word that dirt bag says, you are kidding yourself. He's a coward, a bully and all he needs is to have done to him what he does to other people.

All his SMH - I WISH HE'D SHAKE HIS DAMN HEAD AND IT FALL OFF HIS SHOULDERS.

 

[JackDallas]

Here is the VERY dirtbag I had in mind throughout this thread. He should preach to us about honesty when this mother fucker has been banned on many sites for publishing shit that was personal - and then lying about it. Liquid Reigns is a filthy piece of shit and I'd gladly pay $1000 just to know who he really is.

The forums have provided a way for him to threaten, harass, and intimidate me for the past few years. He's a damn Internet bully and one day, we can weigh his bullshit for what it's worth.

Come out of the shadows you [Unwelcome language removed] maggot. The moderators and admins lied to me and I posted here - and that son of a bitch was NEVER banned... he just came back in another post and shut down the thread along with making more personal attacks.

Shoe's on the other foot mother fucker. If any of you believe a single word that dirt bag says, you are kidding yourself. He's a coward, a bully and all he needs is to have done to him what he does to other people.

All his SMH - I WISH HE'D SHAKE HIS DAMN HEAD AND IT FALL OFF HIS SHOULDERS.

I've never seen this poster before.

 

[BitterPill]

Sorry it has taken me so long, and I appreciate any patience that was expended on me.

I've been thinking about lies for quite some time, and the subject seems hopelessly complicated. Sure everyone lies, a given, and some lies are worse than others, another given, and the fact that people also accumulate lies much like hypocrisies seems evident; it all accumulates, and that accumulated weight, as I said before, makes it difficult to achieve the high ground; perhaps that goes for life in general as surely as it does a forum argument.

Yet there are the misleading arguments passed on as facts by the easily duped or other innocents, and it is impossible to accuse someone of lying when their only crime is ignorance.

Once I saw this, I realized I had been amiss. I had decided in a forthright and poorly considered manner some time ago that any person who through innocence or naïveté passed on a misleading fact was also a liar.

So I want to apologize to anyone and everyone who was duped or naive whom I called a liar. I was wrong, and I am truly sorry.

Of course, someone might argue back that, "Lying can work; it can even propel a person into the presidency!" That is a fair argument to be sure, but as I said before, lies are cumulative, and if one liar is pitted against another, on that level they are nearly equal.

So, I've been pondering existence some, even before the election - certainly after, and believe it or not, I think our very existence, our consciousness, plays a part in winning a forum argument or even an election in subtle yet profound ways, but that idea will have to wait for another day. In preparation, I'm going to leave you all with an interesting video I hope you will take the time to watch, and though it is much longer and dryer than most (any) of the videos I post, it's conclusions are absolutely baffling:

or if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, it quite possibly doesn't make a sound. I'm nearly convinced it won't.

 

[Dawg]

I want to start an ongoing op-ed on how to win forum arguments. I'll fill in some more of my ideas with a few anecdotes as I go along, but I thought I'd start with my most basic and far-reaching observation: occupy the high ground. It is a great advantage in both the tactical and strategic sense.

There are, of course, different high grounds: the moral, the correct, the vulgar, and there may be others, but I'll deal with these three main ones.

First, in the moral dimension - by far the most important, there are certain considerations that bear examination. For example, if one is arguing with an anti-Semite, a racist, a misogynist or a bigot in general, one already owns the high ground assuming one is not also similarly prejudiced. Of course one's bigoted opponents realize this and may try to move one off that high moral ground, make one the bigot by claiming, for example, that Democrats, and I'm a Democrat, were the original racists is an attack that one often encounters, but they can't hope to occupy that high ground themselves, so one simply needs to remind any accuser of when that was and what happened since. Democrats elected a Black president, and I'm a Democrat who voted for him twice.

That should shut them up, and a sensible yet bigoted opponent, if there is such a thing, will quickly abandon that line of attack.

Of course, it helps immeasurably if one also abandons one's own prejudices, a task not easily accomplished, but one well worth the effort. I say this because a hypocrite can never hold the high ground, hypocrisy being a poor and undesirable example of the human condition to say the least, so it is imperative that one abandons prejudice and be forever on the lookout for it cropping-up in one's thinking since thought begets action - be brutally honest with one's self.

Now, before I go on to, I feel I should address hypocrisy more directly, and I will shortly....

(First) a half black President, more white than black by blood and raising

You can thank the boot

 

[Dawg]

You know you've won a forum argument when the best your adversary can do is ridicule your nickname,avatar or grammar or engage in off-topic personal attacks. There is a lotta that in this forum.

Your avatar is perfect

 

[BitterPill]

I'm going to summarize my suggestions and points before moving on:

To win a forum argument, it is important to occupy the moral high ground, and it is important to defend that moral high ground from any who hope to knock one off that high ground; they will surely come calling since they understand instinctively, as anyone with a moral character does, that the high ground is where to be in an moral argument.

I also have pointed out that hypocrisies and lies are part of the human condition - not one of us can escape their reach - instead, in a relative sense, lies and hypocrisies accumulate and weigh upon each of us, and the more one owns, the more they weigh, and their added weight make it more difficult to achieve the high ground.

 

[Spamature]

I want to start an ongoing op-ed on how to win forum arguments. I'll fill in some more of my ideas with a few anecdotes as I go along, but I thought I'd start with my most basic and far-reaching observation: occupy the high ground. It is a great advantage in both the tactical and strategic sense.

There are, of course, different high grounds: the moral, the correct, the vulgar, and there may be others, but I'll deal with these three main ones.

First, in the moral dimension - by far the most important, there are certain considerations that bear examination. For example, if one is arguing with an anti-Semite, a racist, a misogynist or a bigot in general, one already owns the high ground assuming one is not also similarly prejudiced. Of course one's bigoted opponents realize this and may try to move one off that high moral ground, make one the bigot by claiming, for example, that Democrats, and I'm a Democrat, were the original racists is an attack that one often encounters, but they can't hope to occupy that high ground themselves, so one simply needs to remind any accuser of when that was and what happened since. Democrats elected a Black president, and I'm a Democrat who voted for him twice.

That should shut them up, and a sensible yet bigoted opponent, if there is such a thing, will quickly abandon that line of attack.

Of course, it helps immeasurably if one also abandons one's own prejudices, a task not easily accomplished, but one well worth the effort. I say this because a hypocrite can never hold the high ground, hypocrisy being a poor and undesirable example of the human condition to say the least, so it is imperative that one abandons prejudice and be forever on the lookout for it cropping-up in one's thinking since thought begets action - be brutally honest with one's self.

Now, before I go on to, I feel I should address hypocrisy more directly, and I will shortly....

I find the way to win is to:

A) Be informed about you position argue the facts and make sure your facts are correct. If you don't you will pay a price for not looking before you leaped.

B) Lead with the weakest part of your argument. If your argument can survive having its weakness picked over then the road is wide open. You will often find people declaring false victories without ever knowing you were saving the knock out blow for the later rounds.

C) Don't let them drag you off track unless you can see where they are going. If you get lucky they may drag the discussion onto ground that favors your argument without even knowing it. With this you will be able to turn the tables on the subject without even realizing you were on to them all along and their argument is no longer on solid ground.