Helpful tools for the VS. Experience.

JSweeney

JSweeney

CAGiversary!
Lists documenting gambits used by people who enjoy tossing around Conservative and Liberal in an argument.

How Libs try to debate Cons
1. Ask a different question in an attempt to put a conservative on the defensive thereby skirting the question asked of them
2. Insult the person asking the question or any republican
3. Ignore the question
4. Change the subject
5. Answer a question that was never asked of them
6. after repeated attempts they claim they did answer the question
7. Tell us to look it up or search the internet because they cannot produce a link that will back up their position
8. just claim the question is irrelevent and say the "real question" should be
9. post some link with no explaination
10. Just flat out refuse. State "I believe it so therefore it is!!!!"
11. If all else fails, call the poster a ditto head or Faux News watcher.

How Cons try to debate Libs
1. ALWAYS USE UPPER CASE TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS YOU ARE ANGRY
2. There is no such thing as using too many exclamation points! 6 or 7 of those little suckers are a good replacement for facts.
3. When in doubt blame Clinton
4. Remember good American...only terrorist hating commies don't like the president.
5. When faced with a reply from an informed commie loving liberal you can either refer to rule # 3 or run like hell and avoid any real debate.
6. Did we mention ALWAYS BLAME CLINTON? A potent message can be made by combining rules #2 and # 3. Here is an example. When replying to a post questioning how you can support a deserter and convicted criminal who is flushing the country down the toilet you can answer: YEAH WELL CLINTON LIED ABOUT MONICA!
7. When asked to give facts you can either refer to rule #2 or quote some lie you heard on Rush today.
8. Use words and insult people.
9. Say that Critics of Bush hate our troops.
10. Use the words "REAL" "AMERICANS" and "PATRIOTS" a few times. This makes it seem that anyone who disagrees with them is a communist bent on over throwing the government.
11. Add the words "values" "Christian" and "the bible says" to any post you happen to be writing, regardless of the subject.
12. When you get really frustrated hurl fecal references. If that doesn't work start perseverating on penises and semen. If that doesn't work start making anus references.
 
Godwin's Law of Usenet:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation

However, if there are usually a few provision that go along with this:
1. If the topic was about Nazi Germany or a related topic, Godwin's law cannot be invoked.
2. Though by standard practices the person making the comparision is believed to have lost, invoking Godwin's law will rarely cause the argument to immediately cease.

Want to know more?
Wikipedia.
 
Logical fallacies tend to run rampant in debate threads or flame wars.
Here is a link to Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies, which
give a brief overview of some logical fallacies.

Stephen's Guide to the Logical fallacies

Please be advised that attacking the person (argumentum ad hominem), is used in internet arguments rather frequently.
 
How Cons try to debate Libs ..

13. Guilt by association. When losing an arguement, make a connection from the poster to the liberal villian du jour, ex.. What, are you one of Ward Churchill's students?
 
How Cons debate libs

14. When given supporting evidence by a link, dismiss it by saying it's coming from the "liberal media"
 
Typical con vs. lib debate

CON: "Clinton caused all of it"
LIB: "Go watch more faux news neo-con!"
CON: "Traitor"
LIB: "You should look up the word traitor."
CON: "Kerry sucks."
LIB: "Bush sucks."
CON: "Go back to worshipping Dan Rather!"
LIB: "Go hump Ann Coulter's photo some more."
CON: "TYPICAL LIBERAL RESPONSE!!!!!!!"
LIB: "Commie!"
CON: "Nazi!"
LIB: "Nazi!"
CON: "Commie!"

*shakes hands*
 
Heh, I do my best to avoid these traps, not sure how succesful I am though.

Though I've never seen a liberal call a conservative a communist, and I've never seen a conservative call liberals a nazi. Dictator loving, saddam loving etc. yes, but not nazi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top