Disclaimer: this post does not reflect my thoughts of feelings about anyone on this board - in fact, as I have said before, this community has been the nicest religious board I have ever been on; however, I wanted to show you guys the type of reception I have received from other boards I have been on.
Here is a post I wrote several years ago; here are my observations about the conversational style of people who are more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.
After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let's take a closer look, shall we?
1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; what you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to simply supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.
2. Rely on Mocking or Sarcasm to ignite passion: If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken). BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)
3. Do not give an inch: If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation! In all cases, never concede even a minor point to your opponent.
4. Make your opponent work harder: Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has to prove you wrong. If he presents troubling information about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is, you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit. Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.
5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent: After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning. Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.
6. Stay the Course!: Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.
Here is a post I wrote several years ago; here are my observations about the conversational style of people who are more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.
After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let's take a closer look, shall we?
1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; what you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to simply supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.
2. Rely on Mocking or Sarcasm to ignite passion: If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken). BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)
3. Do not give an inch: If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation! In all cases, never concede even a minor point to your opponent.
4. Make your opponent work harder: Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has to prove you wrong. If he presents troubling information about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is, you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit. Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.
5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent: After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning. Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.
6. Stay the Course!: Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.
