Menu
Home
Forums
Visual works
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Info & rules
Site rules
Server list
Sanctuary Discord
Sanctuary FAQ
Sanctuary's origins
Staffing policies
Sanctuary YouTube
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Banned members
User verification codes
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Welcome to the edge of the civilized internet! All our official content can be found
here.
If you have any questions, try our FAQ
here
or see our video on
why this site exists at all!
Home
Forums
Main Sub-Forums
Oh the Humanities!
Trolling guide #1: Be pointless
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
Reply to thread
Message
<p>[QUOTE="Houseman, post: 10096, member: 7"]</p><p>I've noticed, especially at The Escapist, people used to get really upset with me whenever I didn't have an argument that they could attack. The conversation would go something like this:</p><p></p><p>Other Person: *Makes a claim*</p><p>Me: Do you have any evidence for that claim?</p><p>Other person: *Presents evidence*</p><p>Me: That evidence doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion because of X,Y, and Z</p><p>Other person: *Defends evidence*</p><p>Me: No, that still doesn't follow because of problems P, and Q</p><p>Other person: "Well where's YOUR argument, huh?"</p><p>Me: I don't have one, I'm just pointing out the problems with your logic</p><p></p><p>There's an "offensive stance" and a "defensive stance". Sometimes, you might not want to take the defensive stance. You want to be fluid and adaptable, and sticking to a claim or an argument opens you up to attack, which means you'll be on the defensive. If you're "<a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions">Just asking questions</a>", you aren't explicitly making a point. The defense can't retaliate by pinning you down and turning the tables on you.</p><p></p><p>Often times, as shown in the example, the defense will get frustrated with being on the defensive all the time. They want a turn on the offensive. Or perhaps they know that they're losing the debate, and don't want to be utterly humiliated, so they want to change the subject as a way to direct attention away from themselves. When they do this, you can point out the disingenuous tactic they're using.</p><p></p><p>You can disprove someone else's argument by just asking questions. You can posit a contradiction in the form of a question, or you can reveal that there isn't enough evidence to support the conclusion. Your interlocutor, unless he is humble and open to being wrong, does not want this to happen and will resist it.</p><p></p><p>See also <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method">the Socratic method</a></p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Houseman, post: 10096, member: 7"] I've noticed, especially at The Escapist, people used to get really upset with me whenever I didn't have an argument that they could attack. The conversation would go something like this: Other Person: *Makes a claim* Me: Do you have any evidence for that claim? Other person: *Presents evidence* Me: That evidence doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion because of X,Y, and Z Other person: *Defends evidence* Me: No, that still doesn't follow because of problems P, and Q Other person: "Well where's YOUR argument, huh?" Me: I don't have one, I'm just pointing out the problems with your logic There's an "offensive stance" and a "defensive stance". Sometimes, you might not want to take the defensive stance. You want to be fluid and adaptable, and sticking to a claim or an argument opens you up to attack, which means you'll be on the defensive. If you're "[URL='https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions']Just asking questions[/URL]", you aren't explicitly making a point. The defense can't retaliate by pinning you down and turning the tables on you. Often times, as shown in the example, the defense will get frustrated with being on the defensive all the time. They want a turn on the offensive. Or perhaps they know that they're losing the debate, and don't want to be utterly humiliated, so they want to change the subject as a way to direct attention away from themselves. When they do this, you can point out the disingenuous tactic they're using. You can disprove someone else's argument by just asking questions. You can posit a contradiction in the form of a question, or you can reveal that there isn't enough evidence to support the conclusion. Your interlocutor, unless he is humble and open to being wrong, does not want this to happen and will resist it. See also [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method']the Socratic method[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Preview
Name
Verification
What is the name of the default style? (Look to the bottom left of the page.)
Post reply
Home
Forums
Main Sub-Forums
Oh the Humanities!
Trolling guide #1: Be pointless
Top