Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    So, you want to debate on the internet. Good for you! But before you get started, here's some useful tools for masterdebating in a public forum:

    First, never lose your cool. Keeping things calm and rational are key to winning debate. The guy (or more frequently gal) who loses their temper loses the discussion. Avoid personal insults, and avoid an imperious tone.

    Quote Originally Posted by naive angry dummy
    "But why Chairborne? I want to show how much I despise such-and-such ideology!"
    Well, my response to that is simple. If your point in debating is emotional catharsys, go have a beer and a wank and chill out. But if your point is winning people to your way of thinking, then debate smart and debate calmly.

    Quote Originally Posted by naive angry dummy
    "You don't get it! I'm fucking FURIOUS!"
    Ok then. Go on a friendly forum and interact with people who agree with you... and vent. Come back when it's out of your system.

    Quote Originally Posted by naive angry dummy
    "But Chairborne, what's the point of debating, when I'll never convince my most ardent ideological enemy!?"
    Ahhh, a good question... You're not trying to convince them, you're trying to discredit them, and in so doing, convince third party observers.

    So... This starts a thread on how to be an internet star by masterdebating in front of women online.
    Last edited by Chairborne; March 19, 2014 at 5:28 AM.

  2. #2
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Logic for the online master-debater

    First off, you'll need to understand basic logic. You don't need to be a philosopher, but you do need to understand how a valid argument is constructed, and how to identify an invalid argument. Arguments are made up of a series of premises, which link together to form a conclusion. If the conclusion is drawn from the premises, it's valid. If it's not drawn from the premises, it's invalid.

    The two types of arguments are: deductive arguments, or inductive arguments.

    Deductive arguments are true in and of themselves - the premises automatically form the conclusion, with no need for external input. For instance:

    • Premise 1: All terriers are dogs.
    • Premise 2: All dogs are animals.
    • Conclusion: therefore, all terriers are animals.


    It's very, very difficult to attack a valid arguement. Your only strategy in dealing with this sort of argument is to challenge one of the premises; to demonstrate that terriers are in fact not dogs. (In this case, an impossibility). But whether the argument is valid or not, it can still be true or untrue. A valid argument can be based on false premises, but while valid, they are not sound. consider the following:

    • Premise 1: All terriers are horses.
    • Premise 2: All horses are animals.
    • Conclusion: therefore, all terriers are animals.


    This is UNSOUND. This conclusion is valid, even though one of the premises is false. It's valid because the conclusion is drawn from the premises stated. Further, the conclusion is true - though in this case, it's pretty much accidental. However, the argument is not sound, because one of the premises (Premise 1) is false.

    The other type of argument is an Inductive argument. Inductive arguments aren't always true, even if valid and sound. These are arguments that depend on outside evidence. Anything using numbers or statistics, unless it's a straight-up math problem, are most likely Inductive.

    Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Inductive arguments aren't valid / invalid, they're strong or weak. For instance:
    • Premise 1: All the terriers I've ever seen have four legs
    • Premise 2: I have seen 300 terriers, enough to form a reasonable set of data.
    • Conclusion: It is likely that terriers are four-legged animals.

    This is a STRONG argument.

    However, there are also WEAK arguments:

    • Premise 1: All the terriers I've ever seen have four legs
    • Premise 2: I have seen 300 terriers, enough to form a reasonable set of data.
    • Conclusion: All terriers have four legs.


    This is a WEAK argument, because the conclusion is too absolutist. It draws on the premises, but it extends beyond their scope, and tries to be a deductive argument off of data that only supports an inductive argument. It's certainly possible for a terrier to be born with three legs, or to lose one in an accident. You'll see your ideological adversaries FREQUENTLY drawing deductive conclusions from an inductive argument. Point it out for the win!
    Last edited by Chairborne; March 19, 2014 at 5:52 AM.

  3. #3
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Dirty master-debating tricks

    The aim is to discredit your opponent. Make them look like a fool. For that, you need to point out the logical mistakes they're making, and not make any of your own.

    When you write something attacking your opponent, PROOFREAD IT. Compare it to these two lists and make sure you're not guilty of any of the logical fallacies or cognitive biases listed, as these will be your primary weapon. You don't want to get stabbed with your own sword here!

    List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Use these tools to discredit your opponent. When they state a premise that is false, or jump to a conclusion not supported by their premises, call them on it. Ask for data if they skip out on it. If their argument hinges on a logical fallacy or a cognitive bias, point it out - and be specific which is the offending premise, and which bias or fallacy you've identified.

    Feminists and manginas frequently fall for the following logical traps (this isn't an exhaustive list, but is what I see most frequently): sdf



    Anyways, I'll occasionally respond to bullshit without a full rebuttal, simply a link to the specific bias or fallacy they're exhibiting. It's very effective, particularly when they're making a string of errors...

    For instance:

    Quote Originally Posted by masterdebater

    Her:
    "You need to man up! Be a real man!"
    Him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

    Her:
    You MGTOWs and MRAs just want all women barefoot and pregnant, slaves! Rape Culture!
    Him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

    Her:
    Everywhere I see the patriarchy's evil influence!
    Him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception
    Her: No, it's true! Men suck because Andrea Dworkin said blah blah blah...
    Him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
    Her: How can you say that? Andrea is a women, and women are oppressed, so she can't have authority!
    Him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
    Her: You asshole!
    Him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    etc.
    You'll never convince her with that baiting, but on facebook, or on a forum, as long as you remain calm and rational, you can convince the outside observer, the ones towards the middle of the bell curve in the spectrum between two opposing ideologies... And they're the ones who need convincing.

    Cheers!
    Last edited by Chairborne; March 22, 2014 at 8:33 PM. Reason: added hyperlinks

  4. #4
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    What are your guy's observations of internet debate? Any tips?
    Last edited by Chairborne; March 19, 2014 at 12:15 PM.

  5. #5

    Re: Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    I love this Chair. I hope more people read this especially on 'weak' and 'strong' arguments. You got a flare for expositions and explanations. Thank you for posting this

  6. #6
    Administrator jagrmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,394
    Reputation
    15101
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    Good stuff.

    I think of our audience as blue pill men. We will likely never convert women, nor have a need- except as I think you referred to, to neutralize them if they interrupt our message to blue pillers. (I've seen some MRAs engage in endless debate with feminists and gets people absolutely nowhere.) I think the idea would be also to neutralize men who are rabidly against, and focus on engaging the others. Often the resistance (that we want to engage) will be in the form of mild pushback or misconception. Maintaining objectivity I think can be fairly powerful. People get wound up. And we have nothing to sell. We are simply explaining. Maintaining calmness allows others watching to think that the MGTOW side has confidence in their view.

    I'm looking forward to identifying some targets of opportunity (ie: forums for gamers, forums for bodybuilders) and planting a few seeds. My concern is bandwidth. People can type and type and type. How can one possibly respond? Perhaps the idea is simply to shake things up by dropping a picture meme, engage a bit then back off -- see who supports us, PM them to join this forum and build them into ambassadors over time for the different forums. They will have more credibility anyway. If we build enough ambassadors at enough forums, it's a way we don't have to go argue everywhere- although we can always arm them to the teeth with arguments and memes, and engage selectively when time permits.

    Sorry, a bit of free association here, but I also think that Presentation sometimes is more effective than Debate. For example, if we create a Meme on 9gag, it can get upvoted and seen by 10,000 people+. That site is becoming more and more friendly to MGTOW (as are many sites, an absolute sea change in the last few years). If we pin down to a few sites like these and drop condensed wisdom or meme pics, could be super-effective.

    The Funny subreddit has over 5M subscribers.
    funny

    The Reaction subreddit has over 3M
    Reaction GIFs

    Home | RedditList.com - Tracking the top 5000 subreddits

    I've also wondered if sites like Answerology and GirlsAskGuys (sp?) are opportunities to recruit.

    Some of you may be wondering -- who is this Jagrmeister guy? Have a look at some of my posts from MGTOW Forums--> Jagr Archive (collection of my articles)



    Stuff I do: Box, Surf, Tennis (3.5/4.0), Downhill skiing. I lift 4x a week and have for 10 years.
    Stuff I like: Comedy shows, NBA, Reading Non-Fiction (sociology, philosophy, biographies).
    Random facts: I admire Steve Jobs. Favorite travel spots (Russia, Central America).
    *If you're on Twitter, follow me: MGTOW_Jagr

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Mr Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4,717
    Reputation
    22931
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: Logic for the online master-debater

    Quote Originally Posted by Chairborne View Post
    Deductive arguments are true in and of themselves - the premises automatically form the conclusion, with no need for external input. For instance:

    • Premise 1: All terriers are dogs.
    • Premise 2: All dogs are animals.
    • Conclusion: therefore, all terriers are animals.


    It's very, very difficult to attack a valid arguement. Your only strategy in dealing with this sort of argument is to challenge one of the premises; to demonstrate that terriers are in fact not dogs.
    Another strategy is when 'dogs' in premise 1 does not mean quite the same thing as 'dogs' in premise 2. We see this all the time with words such as 'rape' and 'abuse', and the ever-nebulous 'patriarchy'.

  8. #8
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Logic for the online master-debater

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Wombat View Post
    Another strategy is when 'dogs' in premise 1 does not mean quite the same thing as 'dogs' in premise 2. We see this all the time with words such as 'rape' and 'abuse', and the ever-nebulous 'patriarchy'.
    Ah, changing definitions. A common tactic. When you get that one, point out that equivocation is a logical fallacy - cause that's exactly what it is when they change the definition of a word halfway through, or take advantage of a word with two meanings or a pair of synonyms.

    Related to changing definitions is changing criteria halfway through an argument. There's two ways they can do this. First, if they are changing degrees of intensity vice outright definitions, then the fallacy they're guilty of is probably Moving the Goalposts. Assault stats on campus, spousal abuse stats, and the money a woman earns relative to a man are frequently subject to this fallacy by feminists, as evidenced by their inflation over the years to keep the scandal hot.

    Second, they sometimes establish a definition that is tailored to matches what they want to include in a statistic (e.g. they define prolonged staring as a form of sexual assault*) then they're guilty of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I love this one, the name comes from a Texan who goes shooting bullets at the side of a barn, and then walks up and draws the target after the fact.

    *sadly funny anecdote: at my university in the early 90's, a guy with a lazy eye who was partially blind got hauled in front of the campus student conduct board for leering at a girl. He had no idea where that eye was pointing... Sheesh.

  9. #9

    Re: Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    Jagr has something there, we can expand this and create a strategy when arguing online and then disseminate this information. A pincer attack and a vanguard...

    CB, I sent you pm

  10. #10
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    Agreed Kyo - this was a short effort on my part, but it can be really expanded into something comprehensive.

    Watch this space gents!

  11. #11
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    A recent example:

    Army lingo is Haaaaaard.jpg
    Note two things; First, I frame the argument in blue-pill terms, to try to appeal to a larger audience - implying that females can handle it and all that. While it's not what I believe, I need to show the dissonance within the two feminist premises;

    1. We're tough gals that can do anything a man can do
    2. We can't handle being exposed to Haaaaard military lingo

    By taking one side, I can highlight the dissonance. (link to the article subject to debate)

    In retrospect, I could have agreed with the article, and argued that "that's right, women are too delicate to have to listen to this mean lingo, they're far to emotionally fragile". But my other FB friends would just take it as trolling and dismiss it outright. Because remember, I'm not trying to convince the original poster, I'm trying to convince the third party observers - the manginas and a few thoughtful women (Navy Female is definitely one, but she's rare - Army Female should have been on side, I'm surprised she pussed out on this one, she's actually pretty hard otherwise) .
    Who's Chairborne? Office worker & Army Reservist, into electronic music, drummer in a jam band, table-top RPGs, bicycling, X-country skiing, biathlon & marksmanship, TV-free for 15 years.

  12. #12

    Re: Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    Another tool to keep in mind. Using the proper form for words...

    Her: How can you say that? Andrea is a women, and women are oppressed, so she can't have authority!
    It is a common error I see a lot. I've tried to ignore it and never really brought it up before but if one is going to engage and debate, one should remember the valid singular and plural forms of words.

    Andrea is a woman.
    Andrea is not a women.
    The word 'women' is a plurality of the word woman.

    A woman is proper.
    A women is not.

    ---

    I have a separate issue with using the word woman or women in place of the proper gender identification of female. It is more socially acceptable because somewhere along the line, women decided that being referred to as female is insulting, but men being called males is still fine.

    Example.

    John is a man Doctor. (incorrect and not generally used)
    No. John is a male Doctor. (Correct and generally accepted)

    Jane is a woman Doctor. (incorrect but accepted)
    Jane is a female doctor. (correct, but not generally accpeted, because 'inferiority complex)

    Example:
    Man Stocker, Male Stocker
    Woman Cashier, Female Cashier

    It's somehting I hear all the time and it grates on my nerves, but someone decided that it's fine because the culture has decided that the double standard on proper speech is acceptable since women have been taught to be offended by the word 'female'.

    One explanation I heard was that - Somehow - the word female is talking about 'animals', but the word male is not. Either that, or they actually want to push the idea that men are animals as another misandric view so they use the language and skew women as victims for being referred to as female, but they won't apply an equal standard on referring to men as males since it denigrates them as part of the accepted hidden language structure.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Central Ohio, USA
    Posts
    100
    Reputation
    264

    Re: Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    I made it as far as step one; beer and a wank.

  14. #14
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Tools to help you master-debate on the internet

    Yeah, I'm a big fan of step 1.
    Who's Chairborne? Office worker & Army Reservist, into electronic music, drummer in a jam band, table-top RPGs, bicycling, X-country skiing, biathlon & marksmanship, TV-free for 15 years.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •