Rules of Online Debate (humor thread) (Article)

[Inky]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

If you are arguing which religion is best, it is a good idea to point how stupid, violent, immoral, etc the other religion is. The person of the other religion may not know those things.

That reminds me...

If someone does terrible things in the name of a religion you don't believe in, it's a problem inherent in that religion that needs to be addressed.

If someone does terrible things in the name of your religion, they don't really count as belonging to that religion because if they understood it properly, they wouldn't have done those things.

[tomspug]

Dictating to someone what their beliefs/views are and then ignoring them or mocking them when they correct you... that's the worst. You don't belong here if you do that.

[Quagmire]

If someone cuts out on you in the middle of a debate it's because they've been hopelessly spanked and are hiding in shame.

If you cut out in the middle of a debate it's because, "Hey! I have a life outside of the internet you know"!

[Draka]

When your opponent obviously knows biblical scripture but doesn't believe it you must inform them that it is because they don't understand it and they must have faith in it first before they can hope to really understand it. Matter of fact, if anyone disagrees with your exact interpretation of any scriptural quote it is because they don't understand what it is really suppose to mean, like you always do. You should pity and pray for these poor fools who simply are not smart enough to reach the same answers as you.

[Kodanshi]

For the religious: always twist scripture to fit current scientific evidence, if possible. If you can, then you can point out that due to its scientifically advanced nature for its time it must come from god. If you can’t support it with science, then the scripture takes precedence over science (science doesn’t have the answer yet).

The god of gaps reigns supreme! If any anti–religious person cannot explain something in this world or universe then GODDIDIT!

For muslims: If someone cites a violent passage from the Qur’ân then they have quoted it out of context. If they haven’t then they have misinterpreted it. If Islâmic authorities agree with that interpretation, then the person quoting the passage needs to read it in the original ‘Arabic to properly understand it. If they already know ‘Arabic then they need to have studied Islâmic law and interpretation indepth for many years before they can criticise it.

The same does not apply to Judaism or Christianity — a muslim does not need to know the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek to quote mine from the Bibles and criticise those religions.

Tu Quoque reigns supreme! If someone has you in a corner over something despicable in Islâm, point out how Christians (sometimes Jews, but usually Christians, remember to equate the actions of the American government with Christianity) do the same thing, or at least they did a long long time ago.

[methylatedghosts]

If they don't understand, just keep repeating. Failing that, use emoticons and POST IN CAPS SO THAT THEY CAN READ IT BETTER AND THEN YOU KNOW YOU ARE RIGHT!

[Kodanshi]

Always resort to the fallacy of the slippery slope whenever possible. Take a harmless situation and take it to its most dramatic conclusion, then use that to denounce anything related to it.

E.g. 1: gayness = wrong, because it will eventually lead to all men having sex with only men, which will lead to the extinction of the entire human race!

E.g. 2: once you remove a woman’s burka/hijab/niqaab and allow her to wear what she wants then sexuality, fornication, unwanted teenage pregnancies and rape will run rampant! We owe it to women themselves to dress them like misshapen sacks.

[bobhikes]

Originally Posted by Inky

I've noticed some tendencies that crop up in the more heated online debates, that I think almost everyone (including myself) falls victim to every once in a while...so here goes.

The Rules:

If someone you agree with posts a fact without citing a source, they were busy or couldn't be bothered. If someone you disagree with posts a fact without citing a source, they must have made it up on the spot.

If someone you disagree with makes an emotional attack, they've become enraged by how badly they're losing the argument. If someone you agree with does it, they've been pushed past the limit by the other side's ridiculousness; can't blame them really.

If your opponent gives up on a debate, they were backed into a corner by the steel-like grip of your logic and had nowhere else to go. If someone you agree with leaves, they've realized that the blind stubbornness of their opponents will never be breached. Or maybe they wanted lunch.

Anyone have rules to add?

The winner should have to buy the loser a drink of choice. Its the only way to keep it civil.

[Draka]

Originally Posted by bobhikes

The winner should have to buy the loser a drink of choice. Its the only way to keep it civil.

If that were a rule I don't think it will change the actions of those who are blatantly without legs to stand on but think if they flail around enough it's close enough to standing to make an argument. Then on the other side you'd have people start ridiculous arguments knowing they are wrong just to get someone to say they are wrong so they can say "you're right, I'm wrong, buy me a beer"

[bobhikes]

Originally Posted by Draka

If that were a rule I don't think it will change the actions of those who are blatantly without legs to stand on but think if they flail around enough it's close enough to standing to make an argument. Then on the other side you'd have people start ridiculous arguments knowing they are wrong just to get someone to say they are wrong so they can say "you're right, I'm wrong, buy me a beer"

I'ld buy you a beer any time you don't even have to lose.