How to lose an argument online
sethgodin.typepad.com
How to lose an argument online
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: How to lose an argument online
#2IMO Try not to mention breasts, it doesn't help your argument:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=909015
and woefully still digging the hole:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=908944
----
Funny that another breast mentioning thread devolved into a a homophobic and antisemitic troll
Re: How to lose an argument online
#33 and 4 are the worst killers. If an "opponent" resorts to them you know you've won.
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 :)
Re: How to lose an argument online
#4Most items on this list are surprising effective when done by the media.
Re: How to lose an argument online
#5This 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)
Re: How to lose an argument online
#6IMO Try not to mention breasts, it doesn't help your argument: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=909015 and woefully still digging the hole: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=908944 ---- Funny that another breast mentioning thread devolved into a a homophobic and antisemitic troll http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=909389 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=913155
Uh, what?
Re: How to lose an argument online
#7Another classic about how to argue:
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Re: How to lose an argument online
#8I 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.
Re: How to lose an argument online
#9There 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.
Re: How to lose an argument online
#10I 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 a…
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.
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.
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.