"Dilbert's Guide to Debating"

Dilbert's Guide to Debating (sopwath Ars Tribunus Militum Posted: Thu May 17, 2001)

"Just about anytime I come in here, I see a number of rather poor responses to valid arguments. I thought this might be funny to some. Yes, this probably belongs in the lounge, but there just aren't as many good fights in there.

Induhvidual Debating Technique

Lately I have found myself in e-mail discussions with Induhviduals
who employ debating tactics that are very similar. I suspect they
are learning these methods in some sort of top-secret Induhvidual
training facility.

The Induhvidual debating technique involves four steps:

1. Exaggerate your opponent's statement into an absurd absolute.

2. Make an inappropriate analogy.

3. Change the topic to something easier to defend.

4. Claim victory.

For example:

Me: Vegetables are good for you.

Induhvidual: That's ridiculous. If you ate a truckload
of vegetables all at once you would die.

Me: No one eats a truckload all at once.

Induhvidual: Let me give you an analogy. If you tried to swim
across the ocean, and you didn't know how to swim,
and you had no arms or legs, you'd never make it.
Surely you can agree with that.

Me: Um...that's different.

Induhvidual: Ha! So now you agree with me that swimming
is good exercise!"

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=986259

Comment: Just thought that "Dilbert's Guide to Debating" might possibly lighten your day.
Have there ever been any such induhviduals posting on Red Hot Pawn's Debate Forum?

Sounds like a lot of people here.

Originally posted by Krod Mandoon
Sounds like a lot of people here.

So you're saying everybody on the debate forums are guilty of all four of these fallacies!!!

That's ridiculous.

Originally posted by techsouth
So you're saying [b]everybody on the debate forums are guilty of all four of these fallacies!!!

That's ridiculous.[/b]

It's a like a truckload of guilty vegetables.

Originally posted by techsouth
So you're saying everybody on the debate forums are guilty of all four of these fallacies!!!

That's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Krod Mandoon
Sounds like a lot of people here.

Originally posted by techsouth
So you're saying [b]everybody on the debate forums are guilty of all four of these fallacies!!!

That's ridiculous.[/b]

Kudos to you. Nice tongue n' cheek demonstrating his point. 😀

Originally posted by Quarl
Kudos to you. Nice tongue n' cheek demonstrating his point. 😀

"The Induhvidual debating technique involves four steps:

1. Exaggerate your opponent's statement into an absurd absolute..."

^
Thanks, Quarl. Great nickname...

"Scott Adams’ The Dilbert Blog has some helpful advice about debating on blogs – from Auds at RealityCheck(dot)ie
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.

Some highlights -

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."

http://sluggerotoole.com/2005/12/08/dilberts_guide_to_debating_on_blogs/

At least no debaters on this forum would "apply one of these methods to make it sound stupid. Then go on the offensive."