Shady Debaters; what can we do about it?

[Revoltingest]

Hmmm.....an idea for a new thread!

 

[*Anne*]

I don't respond to every single response to me mostly because either

a) I agree

or

b) I don't care enough to argue.

I also forget where and when I post, especially if the thread is huge.

When I mentioned people who don't respond, I'm talking about those in an involved debate who completely ignore your comments and questions. I'm not talking about casual conversations and/or little comments here and there.

Oh...I thought of another one: Hairsplitting! I hate that!!!

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh...I thought of another one: Hairsplitting! I hate that!!!

That should be called "quibbling", woman!

I've found even the lamest & most annoying posts worth responding to.
"Woof!" sums up my thoughts.
(Tis a Twin Peaks reference.)

 

[Penumbra]

Any ideas?

Ignore them.

 

[Reverend Rick]

There is never going to be a good conclusion to a debate. How many times do you see someone say,"Wow, I never realized I was wrong about this".

Just as there are two sides of a coin, so will there be difference of opinion.

What upsets me is when someone tries to convince you of their superior reasoning and intellect while trying to convert you to their viewpoint.

Even a dumb donkey can be right about something.

And another thing that urinates me off.......

Someone asks for a reference on a statement. What a monumental waste of time. If you give them the reference and they don't agree, they discount the source. Why bother in the first place.

To me, debates are not for proselytizing your beliefs on your opponent. Debates are for the benefit of all the spectators. They can decide for themselves what is valid and what is fertilizer.

 

[atanu]

I use a technique that no one can label shady. I use it when I see that I am confronting proof from the opponent that I cannot break.

Opponent: See, X proves Y.
Me (vigorously nodding head in assent): Yes. Yes. X proves Z.
Opponent (with evident exasperation): What?
Me (chuckling with glee): Yes. Yes. You are correct and X proves Z.

All views are perhaps correct? And my belief in this philosophy has not failed me ever. When I forget this philosophy, I cannot chuckle.

 

[Alex_G]

You know the kinds of people I'm talking about: people who refuse to present any evidence for their claims, or who refuse to look at any evidence presented to refute their claims.

Just as bad (if not worse) are people who send other people on wild goose chases:


you: "Where's your evidence for what you're saying here?"

them: "It's in the Bible"

you: "Where in the Bible?"

them: "Go read it"

Later

you: "OK, I just read the whole Bible and what you're talking about isn't in there"

them: "Go read it again."


Now of course, the obvious answer here is that these people should be covered in pig entrails and drug behind a speed boat in shark infested waters, but since this is the internet, and since there are laws against that sort of thing in most backward countries, this solution would at least need to be modified somewhat to suit our needs.

Any ideas?

I go with the classic psychology approach. Start assessing and commenting on their state of mind, motives and insecurities, cultural background, relationships, potential biases, and so on. Tailor that bad boy for the individual culprit.

Eliciting a reaction out of them puts you back in control, at which point you can confidently lay the smack down.

Of course the person you describe doesn’t qualify for having participated in debate, and is auto disqualified from any intellectual exchange the moment they show the true colours u describe. You can point that out to them as well.

Alex

 

[Quagmire]

There is another technique that is used as illustrated below.

Them: This is so because X.
You: Why? This cannot be so because Y.
Them: Silence for 7 days or a month.

After a month
Them: This is so because X.

I suggest that we tie them up in smelliest entrails and hang them up for exhibition.

I agree, but as slippery as those people are, we'll have to use some really tight knots.

Note: Willamena does not believe in them being not her or she believes that them is her. But her replies to them probably make them to feel like Quagmire did -- to sneak up behind her with a bucket of entrails.

I always get the feeling Willemena is laughing beniegnly at most of the people she debates with, which is a technique I would cultivate if I thought I had the knack.

An attitude that quietly and sincerely says " Your ignorance is adorable" is hard to react to effectively (although I'm guessing most of the recipients don't catch it).

I don't understand why people keep responding to these shady debaters page after page after page.

I mean once someone has shown the types of behaviours that you are talking about once or twice i tend to give up on trying to explain things to them. I really don't feel like wasting my time.

I still read the threads thought, as a psych student the myriad of ways these people chose to defend their view point (no0 matter how ridiculous and desperate) is very interesting.

-Q

I am probably guilty of being a shady debater. If I get tired of the argument, I just cut it off. After a while the debate begins to take it's toll on my emotions, my head starts to hurt and my thoughts end up like a deflating balloon. PFTHHHHHHhhhhhh.

It's not that I think I am wrong about the argument I am presenting, or that I am even conceding to their argument. I just have to let the argument go when it becomes too much.

No Rakel, you're merely a lazy debater.

I petition the OP to include a third type of shady poster:

Me: So, after much debate, you seem not to be able to defend your position. My argument is logical and you have failed to disprove me. Do you concede that my point was correct?

Shady Poster: ................ :run:


About a month later in a new thread.....

Shady Poster: How about my original point which was disproved a month ago eh? I think its rather clever. What do you guys think?

Me:

This debating technique is called The Fallacious Jason Argument (no matter how many times you kill it, it keeps getting back up and coming back in an endless chain of disturbing sequels)

What about people who skirt the rules by posting insults as nebulous metaphors and indirect attacks? I hate those people the most.

Well, Kilgore, it's sort of like someone who has 3 horses and one spoon, but can't play the ukulele, in other words,....

There is never going to be a good conclusion to a debate. How many times do you see someone say,"Wow, I never realized I was wrong about this".

Once in a while, which is good enough. :yes:

Just as there are two sides of a coin, so will there be difference of opinion.

It isn't about differing opinions, it's about the character of the debater.

What upsets me is when someone tries to convince you of their superior reasoning and intellect while trying to convert you to their viewpoint.

Even a dumb donkey can be right about something.

And another thing that urinates me off.......

Someone asks for a reference on a statement. What a monumental waste of time. If you give them the reference and they don't agree, they discount the source. Why bother in the first place.

To me, debates are not for proselytizing your beliefs on your opponent. Debates are for the benefit of all the spectators. They can decide for themselves what is valid and what is fertilizer.

Exactly.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Most people engage in what you call "shady tactics" from time to time. Also, many engage in using severe logical fallacies to shoot down these "shady tactics". I've recently started blocking the person and moving on in the thread.

 

[beenie]

Even a dumb donkey can be right about something.

And another thing that urinates me off.......

This whole thread has me laughing, but I laughed even more here.

I find myself doing this :ignore: at these types of debaters.

 

[Quagmire]

It is funny, but here's why I think it's also a serious problem (and why I posted it in Debates). RF is supposed to be serving a purpose. The name of this place is Religious Education Forums. People are supposed to be able to come in here to gather information they can actually do something with.

If we have people in here intentionally spreading misinformation, then they're interfering with the intended function of the site.

Being misinformed is one thing, we all are to one degree or another about a lot of things, but to purposely hold on to an opinion after it's been proven to be false, and to continue advocating that opinion and purposely spreading whatever misinformation it's founded on, is something else.

If someone comes into RF and starts a thread saying "My religious writings tell me that Redheaded people are evil and we should hate them", OK, that's fair fodder for debate, and if that person can demonstrate that his religious writings actually do say this, then so far he's playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

But, if someone else comes into the thread and shows this person, "No, actually, that's a fairly recent and somewhat tweaked interpretation. The passage in the original language says 'Thick-headed people are ignorant and destructive and should be avoided' not 'Redheaded people are evil and should be killed'. Your interpretation was first put forward 12 years ago by a disgruntled clergyman who just happened to have a redheaded mother-in-law. *links to several respectable sources verifying all of the above*

If the person in the example above continues to hold on to his belief about this passage, without even attempting to intelligently counter any of this, obviously, he's not here to make any determinations about the truth. Obviously, he's got a thing against redheaded people and he's just here to troll.

If several more people come into the debate and offer even more evidence that this person is following an inaccurate interpretation of his own religious writings, and instead of replying or even considering any of what's being said to him he just digs in further and accuses everyone of "ganging up on him", it isn't really a debate anymore at that point, it's a stubbornness contest (and thick-headed people have the advantage as far as that goes).

 

[Quagmire]

So anyway, it may be a ridiculous situation but the "what can we do about it" in the title is a sincere question.

 

[Songbird]

So anyway, it may be a ridiculous situation but the "what can we do about it" in the title is a sincere question.

I'm not sure much can be done. The lack of face-to-face cues in the virtual setting fosters miscommunications. We're stuck in a room together with people of various and unknown beliefs, cultures, paradigms, experiences, ages, and mental health issues, with no clear context to help us sort how to approach each behavior. I think virtual culture will evolve skills to handle the more obnoxious behaviors, but I don't know what that will be.

 

[Badran]

So anyway, it may be a ridiculous situation but the "what can we do about it" in the title is a sincere question.

There are two obvious choices, continue, or drop it.

If you continue, you have 3 choices:

1) Remain sincere and serious in your attempts to point out the information the other refuses to acknowledge, in the hope that you can somehow achieve that through various possible ways (which sometimes works, even with those people, though extremely rare), or until he decides to walkaway. Of course there's a chance he'll do neither, and that you'll keep going on forever.

2) Decide to continue trying to convince, but this time through a different approach of aggressive confrontation, and somehow attempts at shocking the other person (which also doesn't work that often at all, but in a few instances it does), until it either works or he decides to walkaway. Once again there is of course the possibility that he'll do neither.

3) Decide to have fun with him since you're not going to achieve the goal you were aiming for.

For the purpose you're asking for, i guess 1 is the best answer. Because even if he decides to go on forever, others who are seeking learning will be able to distinguish between your approach and better arguments, and his weaker arguments and negative approach.

 

[*Anne*]

I'm not sure much can be done.

I agree. ^ Unless forum rules are broken, and people are getting way too personal, how can you do anything other than point out the inaccuracies.

I don't debate ~ pleasant, thoughtful conversation is more my speed ~ but I do follow debate threads. Relative to those who debate science and scripture, I am among the uninformed. I haven't opened a Bible since 8th grade, and I wrote notes to my friends during Biology.

My limited or complete lack of knowledge in either area doesn't prevent me, however, from getting a good feel for who knows what he/she is talking about and who doesn't. Despite some of the turns certain debates have taken, I still manage to filter what is credible information and learn from it. Even the inaccurate arguments are helpful in showing me how some people think and how wrong that process can go.

RF is supposed to be serving a purpose. The name of this place is Religious Education Forums. People are supposed to be able to come in here to gather information they can actually do something with.

I think RF is great just the way it is, and the community is quite good at keeping things in balance. Sidenote: Thanks to several Creation vs TOE threads, I just picked up Evolution for Dummies. Feel free laugh ~ it's cool. Had you told me 20 years ago that I'd be reading about evolution with interest, I'd have thought you were nuts.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I just saw something amazing, someone just admitted they were wrong

They did give the Russkies a bloody nose, but you're right....a silly claim it was.

There is intelligent, mature life out there after all.

-Q

 

[Quagmire]

I just saw something amazing, someone just admitted they were wrong



There is intelligent, mature life out there after all.

-Q

It's like finding a 4 leaf clover.

 

[Quagmire]

If you want to get rid of what you perceive to be a problem with misinformation and dirty tactics in the debates thread, then you're going to have to get rid of the cause behind all of that, and that's the debate threads themselves.

No, I completely disagree. IMO, this is like saying if you want to get rid of cheating in baseball you're going to have to call off all the games.

My gripe is that the people I'm talking about aren't debating. Stating an opinion, and then re-stating that opinion over and over again, without directly addressing any opposing arguments, isn't debating, it's either proselytizing or trolling (depending on whether the person involved is campaigning for something or against something else).

If you look at a few of the threads concerning the kinds of people using the kinds of tactics I'm talking about here, it should be easy to see that the basic formula comes down to this:

Oppie4God posts a long, preachy OP.

Someone asks "Hey Oppie? What are you basing all this on?"

Oppie4God either ignores the question, becomes irate because someone is asking the question (and interrupting the sermon), or just re-states or keeps paraphrasing the points he was putting forth in the OP without addressing any opposing arguments (other than to insult whoever's making the opposing arguments).

This isn't debating, it's preaching, and it's trolling. It doesn't belong in a debate forum.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I believe you are talking about one of these guys

Ferrous Cranus

Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

 

[Quagmire]

The people who post like this? They aren't taken seriously. Not by regular members, probably not by most lurkers, pretty much not by anyone with half a functioning brain. It is easy to tell the difference between a reasonable, well thought out post (even if it's not eloquent) and mental excrement.

The majority of us are not children.

But some are. There are kids who use this place for research for thier schoolwork (and God help them ). There are other kids (actually people of all ages probably) who come into a place like this because they're having doubts about what they've been taught or raised with and need to find some answers for themselves. That's why I think it's important to minimize the spread of misinformation to whatever extent we can.

The majority of us are adults capable of reasoning and discerning what posts have value and merit and what posts detract from thoughtful and constructive conversations. You do not need to hold our hands or shield our virgin eyes from the ignorant and belligerent. We can take care of ourselves.

If you continue to make rules for debate in attempts to protect us you will soon find the need to make more rules and then more after that. Soon the rules for debating could be as complex and mired as the United States Tax Code. Will the debate threads be a little cleaner? Maybe, but you run the risk of alienating forum goers both veteran and noob and you run the risk of over sterilizing the environment until no meaningful signs of life can be found.

I know, man. And creating more rules isn't what I had in mind (we have our hands full enforcing the rules we already have). That's why I'm out here asking for ideas.

There are problems that the rules can't cover and there's no way we could apply any rules to these problems without going completely Orwellian.

 

[Quagmire]

I believe you are talking about one of these guys

Ferrous Cranus

Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

Pretty much. :yes: