SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech
Let's Argue Until the End of Time!
An SI Board Since August 2001
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
66 2 0
Emcee:  Don Pueblo Type:  Unmoderated
What better way to use your time? There IS no better way!

The "problem", of course, is that other discussions are being bogged down due to people who simply have stopped (or maybe never started) using logic.

SEND THEM HERE! THIS IS HOME BASE!

********

Subjects for Endless Debate

The best subjects for Endless Debate are religion/morality, politics, money/investments, ethnic backgrounds, and education. Combinations of two or three of these will reduce the Combat Potential significantly. For example, people with nothing better to do don't seem to have a problem arguing forever about Democrats or Republicans, but if you had someone arguing about crossdressing Buddhists who dropped out of Iowa State University, you reduce the potential for and endless argument.

******

Players

To argue until the End of Time, you need to have already formed conclusions that cannot be changed. This is absolutely essential. It does not matter HOW your conclusions were formed, or if they are correct or not.

You also need a disdain for anyone who does not agree with your conclusions. This is easy; all you need to do is form a conclusion regarding anyone who does not agree with you.

Of course, you need time. You can't be spending all your time arguing on the Internet and working at the same time (unless your boss doesn't know about it) so you need to have an independent source of income and no weapons going off down the street and so forth. Don't worry about people who are actually working attacking you, they are too busy.

Finally, you need to stay within your own sphere of Basic Underlying Points of Truth. It is very dangerous to argue about something that you have not already formed a solid conclusion on. This can be tricky. Others can twist the argument to fit into THEIR solid conclusions. For example, if you can't spell and don't want to learn, you must never, ever argue about spelling. If you're busted, it's not good enough to just say, "Spelling isn't important", the idea is to not respond at all and quickly move the argument back on solid ground.

*****

Tactics

An entire book could be written on tactics, but they can be distilled into a few basic concepts.

The main thing is you must assume that your opponent is sub-human and has survived some sort of violent accident where their brain was severely damaged. Once you do that, all you need to do is watch for weak spots, and attack when you see one. For example, let's say you are very fond of making erotic sculptures out of anchovy paste and mini rice cakes, but you can't spell anchovy correctly. You do not try to defend yourself if someone calls you a twisted freak that can't spell. DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY ATTACK THAT YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND. Simply WAIT for your antagonist to post ANYTHING that can be linked to fish, sculpture, rice, or cakes, and then attack him or her from high ground. In this case, you might say something like "Typical fish hating retoric from a scumbag bigot hippocrit". Then you wait and see what part of your message picks the scab, and go there with your next message! Make mental notes of things that really annoy you, and you can surprise attack with them. (Important Note: antagonists will be making notes of the things you attack with, as they will assume that they can pick YOUR scabs using that information!)

The best tactic, and the easiest, is to never think about anything except yourself. Everyone else is wrong, and you are right. The only way this can backfire is if you go totally insane and NOBODY agrees with you. You don't lose the argument, but you lose out on arguing, since nobody will argue with you. (The best example I've ever seen on the Internet is maryromantic.com ...you will note the time and effort that went into this site. Hours and hours and hours of work...all to explain why this psychopath who has an 80% chance of a future appearance on "America's Most Wanted" is just a nice harmless normal human being.)

When you get pissed off, DO NOT WAIT!! ATTACK!! Waiting only makes you think, and thinking can pollute your Basic Underlying Points of Truth and create messy spills that are hard to clean up.

Above all, do not show ANY tolerance for ANY point of view that does not TOTALLY agree with your Basic Underlying Points of Truth! You could change your mind about something and then the argument would be over and you would LOSE!
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
66WATCH IT, BUDDY! <b>THIS</b> is the poorest excuse for a thread: SLazarus_Long-8/8/2001
65ROTFLMAO!!Lazarus_Long-8/8/2001
64Hey Scumbag! This has to be the poorest excuse for a thread I have ever seen. WDealer-8/7/2001
63Hey! How did you know? I was the guy that you saw on TV who had the magnifying Jorj X Mckie-8/7/2001
62"I can count past three, I just chose not to." Uh-huh. And your last CatLady-8/7/2001
61ROFLMAO!!!Peach-8/7/2001
60I can count past three, I just chose not to. Having other people laugh at you dJorj X Mckie-8/7/2001
59It's not MY fault neither YOU nor Douglas Adams can count past three. And ILazarus_Long-8/7/2001
58I see that you are prejudiced against those who are numerically challenged......Jorj X Mckie-8/7/2001
57Ain't worth wasting my time arguing with people who can't tell the diffeCatLady-8/7/2001
56Yes, I did see her post....and mine wasn't a blunder. It was intentional andJorj X Mckie-8/7/2001
55CatLady, that is part of the joke. The people who have read all 5 books in the tJorj X Mckie-8/7/2001
54I'm clairvoyant, dummy! Wasn't that obvious? I TRIED to read them. FrLazarus_Long-8/7/2001
53tril·o·gy (trl-j) n. pl. tril·o·gies A group of <b>thCatLady-8/7/2001
52No, just on this subject....Knowing your passion for that author!!! otherwise yNeenny-8/7/2001
51I am sooooooo predictable..... <NO!>Jorj X Mckie-8/7/2001
50As soon as I read LL's post, I could have bet on your reply!!! <half a hNeenny-8/7/2001
49If you haven't read them, how do you know that you don't like them?Jorj X Mckie-8/7/2001
48I know I shouldn't say this, but ...... I don't like Douglas Adams'Lazarus_Long-8/7/2001
47"Mostly Harmless" is the fifth book in the Hitchhiker Guide to the GalJorj X Mckie-8/7/2001
46??????Lazarus_Long-8/7/2001
45or "Mostly Harmless"?Jorj X Mckie-8/7/2001
44Was that a "Thanks for all the fish!" grub?Lazarus_Long-8/7/2001
43Tired of all the strife on this thread? Need tranquility? A place to hear yourLazarus_Long-8/7/2001
42nobody made sure I got the pic :( <grub....for monica!!>Neenny-8/7/2001
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):