Apolyton debate strategies

[Ming]

Originally posted by Azazel
I think you should be nicer to him, since he corrected your freudian slip.

The warning was for something else... He started a thread titled Troll... and I deleted it.

Typical Friday behaviour for DaShi...

[Az]

"For something else"... sure, Ming, suuuuuure. *chuckle*

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ming
There is also the Broken Record Strategy...
Somebody just keeps saying the same thing over and over again, totally ignoring any of the responses in the thread... knowing that people will tire of the game and get bored, leaving him the victor, but only because nobody else is willing to play anymore.

Dang, you beat me to it.

Practitioner: CivNation, Glonk (computer threads).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
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.

I call that the Minced Meat strategy, or perhaps the Creeping Molasses strategy

[Japher]

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)

Yeah, well it just makes your post look bigger, implying that there might actually be some merit to what you are trying to say.

slice up into a bunch of piece

In order to make your post look really, really, really, much bigger than actually really, really, is.

and reply to everything they said one by one.

Sometimes you have to, i.e. when some one says "did you even read my post?" and you know that you didn't and were actually following some other strategy.

The opponent would do the same, cut and pasting the opponents cutting and pasting, and the argumenting into an unreadable mess.

Yes, but they are fun.


The Random Blabber Strat - This strategy uses the fine art of BS to give an almost meaningful argument while actually not saying anything useful at all. Sometimes the argument will be confusing, this way, in order to reply, the rebuttee may have to read the post several times in order to reply, and will, in the end, not really have a solid ground to stand on because there never really was one to begin with. All there was, was some long winded retort filled with run-on sentences, commas where there shouldn't be com,mas, and really no sense to be made of the argument at all.

This Strat is commonly used by Japher, that fool, and most political leaders, such as Bush last night.

[Urban Ranger]

More debating styles can be found on the Flame Warrior site.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ming


The warning was for something else... He started a thread titled Troll... and I deleted it.

Typical Friday behaviour for DaShi...

Darn! I should have been more subtle.

[Japher]

more subtle

That wasn't subtle at all.

gave me a good chuckle though

[SlowwHand]

"the mutually ignored destruction doctrine: this primitive, yet brutual strategy relies on the concept of the flame post to attempt to flame the enemy to a fine crisp, even if it means the poster's own destruction by means of flame warfare.
practioners: Sloww, Sava, Chris62"


As a matter of fact, I flame Sava because he reminds me of me, as a boy.
Ditto on most I flame frequently.

And besides all that, I get paid good money to be
obnoxious.

[Az]

are you a lawyer, Slowwhand?

[MRT144]

i thought he be lionel richie, because those ads for this new "best of" is the most obnoxious thing EVER

[DuncanK]

How do you know if you are winning or losing? Some people use tactics in debate because they can't come up with good arguments, like the "take stuff out of context and twist strategy," but I don't consider it a winning strategy because all the opponent has to do is point out the use of the strategy and make the correction. Then its thrown back in the face of the person using this strategy, and the opponent looks weak.

I guess if you make the other person give up you win. In this case the overwelming force startegy works great. People on one side of the debate team up on a person on the other side. Each person takes a particular part of the argument and concentrates on it. The opponent is overwelmed and confused and quits. This works particularly well if you can get away with threadjacking another thread and holding the same debate in both threads. Then the opponent has to keep switching back and forth between threads and becomes more confused. Of course, if you are a victim of this strategy you should just say you have to do something important elsewhere and retreat.

[MRT144]

which leads me to my next point. what is the point of debatng on apolyton if nobody changes their opinions on it or even cares about counter arguements? imran, back me up here.

[MrBaggins]

True... I've conceded a point maybe twice in ten years of internet discussion.

It can happen... but its like lightning striking

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
True... I've conceded a point maybe twice in ten years of internet discussion.

It can happen... but its like lightning striking

I don't think that anyone has changed my mind on things, but getting a different point of view is something that makes me continue to evaluate my own positions. Debate is a good thing even if no consensus is reached.

I have not been here on 'poly all that long, but I have found both sides on most arguments to be unusually well informed and skillful at presenting their arguments. A nice change from most people that you come in contact with these days.