I don't understand why it is structured as a pyramid
You should always start your argument with an ad hominem and, if it doesn't work, slowly work your way towards insulting your interlocutor, the highest form of rethoric
i'M mR EtHaLis fRoM SoME rAnDOm JeRk Off wEbSitE YoU'vE NevEr HeArD oF aNd i'M sO sMaRT i kNoW hOW tO DebAte PEopLe On tHe iNteRnEt.
No no, that's name calling already, you jumped straight to the top. You need to cloak your disdain in a civil tone, because remember the next step is going to tone policing. So something like, "I don't think you have a lot of experience arguing on the internet seeing as you come from a much smaller instance." is much better bait.
I thought it was a joke about starting an argument with an ad hominem.
I thought it was a joke about starting an argument with an ad hominem.
:smuglord: actually, I think you'll find that I did attack him personally instead of his underlying points, which according to rationalwiki, counts.
spoiler
It was/is but your bit was better. Admitting being wrong isn't a step though. That's also why I deleted it until you responded because I realized I'm not funny 😢
spoiler
I realized I'm not funny 😢
Your nickname betrays that lie
Where are the FACTS and LOGIC??spoiler
The issue with ironic shitposting in a nutshell. I'm going to tap out though before we are under so many layers of irony the whole thing caves in
Its the recommended daily internet arguments per USDA guidelines.
- At the bottom are your ad hominems, these lay a good foundation and give you the required dopamine for the day.
- Then come your basic civility criticisms and tone policing to make sure everyone treats you with the respect you deserve.
- Contradictions are of course necessary to make sure your position is represented and to make it harder for opposing views to get traction.
- A few counterarguments here and there make sure that you get a bit of research done in order to be able to form new arguments. This is a good idea as arguments age over time and need to be replaced every so often.
- A refutation is of course a long-term source of dopamine that you can refer back to in the upcoming days for a quick hit by marvelling at your own argument.
- If you have taken care of all your daily internet argument requirements and still have time left, why then you get to do some name-calling. As a treat.
Which layer of the chart is me acting like I've never heard of whatever is vexing the other person? Also what about purposefully mispronouncing names?
I have no regard for etiquette and will freely just shit talk the other guy under any and all circumstances. If anyone has a problem with this, they are free to try and stop me
About where I'm at; etiquette is reserved for the comrades and everyone else can gargle on my balls
Is there a name for coming up with extremely unlikely scenarios where you'd be right? Like, very convoluted, technically possible, but extremely improbable
Are you looking for a debatebro term? That's a violation of "The principle of charity".
"Thought experiments" can end up that way when there's no actual experiment done as a result to test it out, or after it gets released into the wild. The enduring use of P-Zombies or simulation theories.
Sam Harris-ing
Essentially a form of begging the question; If we assume this scenario where I'd be correct, then I'd be correct.
states the opposite case with little or no supporting evidence
no it isn't
Step 1) Say something objectively true.
Step 1b) "Well, ACTUALLY..."Step 2) Tell that stupid motherfucker off.
That one annoying-ass reddit powermod that runs contrapoints sub who got incredibly angry at us that one time
the Sartre quote always comes to mind
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Yeah, fascists love calling me out for namecalling everytime I call them fascists for supporting genocide.
Pea brained: Using ad hominem because you have no real argument.
Normal brained: Insulting your opponent once you realize ad hominem aren't insults.
Galaxy brained: Using ad hominem because informal fallacies aren't actually logical fallacies.
i wont waste time with trolly libs. i just match their tone.
want to converse in good faith? i will converse in good faith.
name calling and snarky remarks? you get swines with excrements on its testicles right back.
