How to lose an argument online

A forum I hang out on has an "almost troll" that has a favorite argument pastime of thinking up a conspiracy - googling some related idea and posting a long rant about it.

When he butts into the middle of the discussion with one of these you just know it's going to spiral down badly - for example whilst discussing the idea of a back door in W7 (I know, I know :() he sidetracked us onto discussing de-armament codes in missiles :)

klahnako• 17 years ago

Most items on this list are surprising effective when done by the media.

DanielBMarkham• 17 years ago

This is good, but I disagree with #8: Going to the edges

Most times it is very useful to determine just what another person is saying. Language is extremely slippery. I agree that going to the edges can be awful if done poorly, but if somebody says something like "I'm a utilitarian" I think it's perfectly honest and respectful to ask something like "Does that mean you would sacrifice a million people to give humanity an additional ten years of lifespan?"

Because sometimes "utilitarian" means that and sometimes it doesn't. Utilitarian is just a label, and labels don't in themselves have a lot of meaning. Words only have context when related to other words -- this is why every honest web discussion usually ends with a discussion in terms. Unless you explore the extremes you really have no idea what the other person is saying.

Godwin's law is awesome, but just like Occam's Razor, it has it's limits. Sometimes people are really talking about something that resembles naziism -- like say, modern nazis. So sure, 99% of the time you're whacked for bringing up nazis, there's also that other time when you're not. And you probably can't tell the difference! (smile)

proemeth• 17 years ago

Another classic about how to argue: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

billybob• 17 years ago

I understand why "Godwin's law" is so often cited, but really. It's silly to compare Obama or Bush or whoever to Hitler simply because you don't like them, but it's not silly to bring up Nazis when someone is advocating eugenics.

It's also not silly to bring up Hitler, Stalin and Mao when somebody claims that religion is the source of all oppression. They clearly demonstrate that atheistic worldviews can be radical and dangerous, too.

To simply point and yell "Godwin!" at every mention is more childish that bringing up these topics when they're not really relevant to the discussion. Surely there are SOME valid lessons from the worst mass killings in history.

astine• 17 years ago

You still need to make sure that your comparison is apt. More often than not, comparisons to Nazis and the like are hyperbole, or at least sound like it.

True, but be careful about how you use this. I've had people claim that Nazism, Communism, et al, were forms of religion themselves, which is true, depending on how you use the term.

gamble• 17 years ago

Not that I necessarily disagree with your point, but it should be mentioned that Hitler and the Nazi party as a whole were not atheists. I don't know where the idea that they were atheists comes from.

rfreytag• 17 years ago

There is a 'slippery slope' (#7) when it comes to software - unpaid maintenance can consume your resources. Charge early and often. Make it a product - price it at least more than your lifetime maintenance cost. This is from experience.

How to lose an argument online

Related Stories