Apolyton debate strategies

[KrazyHorse]

He's having trouble classifying me. Not only did I make the list twice (under the same categories as Imran ), he also prefixed me with a "sometimes"...

I am a Rennaissance man of posting.

[Ming]

Originally posted by MRT144
what about Fez? id call that style GODZILLA

Read my warning again...

[Sikander]

My strategy is to ignore anyone that can handily whip me in a debate.

[monkspider]

Good ones Ming/MrT!
Fez deserves a category all his own.

[KrazyHorse]

Personally, I rely on sabotaging discussions that aren't going my way or that I feel would be more interesting if they addressed a different point. I usually rely on sexual references, obscenity or the art of the ridiculous. I call it the Surrealist school of posting. For some reason, Ming calls it spamming and threatens to close the thread.

[Frozzy]

Sikander, thats why I use the "Dodgeball" technique

[Ramo]

Guerilla warfare is a widely misunderstood strategy. It can be misabused, true, but it's sometimes the most effective way to respond to an argument. What look like out-of-context quotes to outsiders make perfect sense to the people in the debate (although if the war goes on too long as this style so often does, the implied meaning and overall argument sometimes gets lost). And you can't take on a guerilla conventionally.

[DRoseDARs]

Perhaps instead of a regular thread, someone should do it Poll-style, allowing everyone to pick one or more favored styles...

...instead of relying on others to do it for them. We know where that can lead.

[Bosh]

I used to do really epic guerilla style arguements with people. They can get insane when you have two people like that going head to head (for example me and Porphy years ago), but am mostly too lazy now.

Can't believe you forgot Bald Assertion Man strategy

[monkspider]

Original post updated to include a couple notably missing strategies.

[Shi Huangdi]

"

Can't believe you forgot Bald Assertion Man strategy "

Ahh Giancarlo used this frequently..

Back in the old days of the Libertarian Horde, I used the cut and paste frenzy style which dominated warfare of the day. In it, you would cut and paste the entire post(except for any strong point the opponents had which you don't want to adress) slice up into a bunch of piece and reply to everything they said one by one. The opponent would do the same, cut and pasting the opponents cutting and pasting, and the argumenting into an unreadable mess.

Nowaday I do more of a hit and run style. I don't care about debating as much as i used to, and i never stick with the debate. I normally just add on a few posts to the side I favor and then leave the thread.

[Bosh]

The latter name stems from a comment from made by General Boris Godunov in the heat of battle against the doctrine's originator, Fez I.

Nope. Look at the top of the page.

http://fjorxc.rooms.rubberrooms.net/general/gallery.html

[Shi Huangdi]

Boshko was the person who came up with calling it BAM in the first place, monk.

[monkspider]

Oh really? I guess that just shows what a newbie I am.
-edit credit given where credit is due.

[loinburger]

I can't believe you missed some classics:

Rolleyes Doctrine: Can't think of a clever retort? No problem! Just "rolleyes" your opponent, making it clear that you would post a clever retort, but that your opponent's opinions are so grossly inferior to your own that there's really no need for you to respond.
Pracitioners: MrFun

Righteousness Doctrine: No matter the debate, no matter the mix of opinions, no matter whether your own opinion is actually justified or not, this doctrine holds that you can win any debate by claiming that your opponent is evil (perhaps even Satan Himself).
Pracitioners: Names withheld to keep the thread open.

The Worst Debate Tactic Ever: Yes, it's difficult to believe that anybody would use this particular debating tactic, but nevertheless some posters still employ it from time to time.
Pracitioners: Anybody who disagrees with me.