Dont get fooled by Hype, page-103

It certainly is getting heated in here.

The problem with debates on the Internet is that there’s no objective way to judge who won. no equivalent of a knockout. In fact, there's not even a word that means knockout when you’re talking about an exchange of ideas. But there should be. I recommend using the word knockout.

I always consider myself a winner by knockout whenever someone distorts my point to something ridiculous and then argues against the ridiculous thing. That seems like an acknowledgement that my real point is unassailable. Why else would someone need to invent a whole new point to argue against?

Knockout!

Likewise, when anyone brings into the debate Hitler, or the slippery slope, or guilt by association arguments, I consider that a victory by knockout too. And if someone ignores a simple and direct question, that’s the cleanest victory there is.

If you are new to the Internet, allow me to explain how to debate in this medium. When one person makes any kind of statement, all you need to do is apply one of these methods to make it sound stupid. Then go on the offensive.

Turn someones generality into anabsolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Australian’s celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Australian’s celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)

Turn someones factual statements intoimplied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are paedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with paedophiles.

Turn factual statements into impliedequivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.

Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

Do your own research, come to you're own conclusions.
Just saying ...