Now I'm normally not the kind of person who makes threads, but I am the the kind of person who likes to argue over the internet, what can I say? it's my guilty pleasure. That being said, I have seen these argument techniques, and I am sad to admit I have used them myself.
Disclaimer: I am simply re-writing the key ideas of a Cracked article, these are not my own personal ideas. If you want more information, please click the link: http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
With that out of the way here I go.
1. Winning by Losing
However badly you have been embarrassed or disproven by this person, it turns out it was all part of their master plan to get that reaction out of you, to prove some kind of point they cannot seem explain. They honestly seem to think that despite flailing uselessly in making their original argument, they are smooth enough to convince people they are a master puppeteer pulling everyone's strings.
2. The Pity Riposte
When someone throws out words like "droll" and "pathetic" and "amused" and generally trying to talk like a wealthy James Bond villain, he comes across less like the confident, cigar-smoking fellow he is imagining and more like a man who has been pantsed attempting to convince clothed people that they are the ones that should feel foolish
(The frequent Escapists may recognize this one from any argument in any one of these forums)
3. The Backtrack
If you can't unsay something you just realized is horribly wrong, the next best thing is to claim you've never said it. This is an extremely ballsy maneuver on a forum without an edit function, and usually forces reliance on the old, "Oh, you just misinterpreted what I said" maneuver.
4. Super Tunnel Vision
So, they've dismantled your argument and shredded all your points. Have they taken everything away from you? No! You still have your dig- no, wait, that's gone. There must be something though! Aha! Someone mentioned you made a grammar error. Attack it with all your might! Surely this is the foundation of all their arguments. Don't get distracted by the evidence or anything, man! Eyes on the prize!
5. Be Your Own Wingman
Creating a second account to agree with your first is most often called "Sockpuppeting", but "Wingman" sounds sadder. The "Reverse Wingman" is a variation where the second account jumps on the band-wagon making fun of the first one, apparently in an attempt to help the second account to become "the popular one" that the poster will continue to use.
6. Hotel California Guest
They keep checking out but they never leave. Sometimes they demand to be banned or have their account deleted because this is a way of talking like you are done with the site without actually having to give up the last word. This also sets them up for item #1 above when they can claim their banning was just what they wanted and you played into their hands.
7. The Innocent Question
Classic passive-aggression technique with the easy fallback of "I was just asking questions!" which plays critics off as suppressors of ideas and critical thinking. Questions include "Can this 9/11 I just stumbled upon be real???" or "Why is it taboo to just explore what makes different races smarter than others?" See, because they're not saying one race is better than another. They're ASKING.
8. First Amendment Reinterpretation
Activist judges have nothing on internet people, who reinterpret an amendment guaranteeing them freedom from government repression as a law protecting them from any criticism of their ideas and even requiring other people to spend money creating and maintaining a platform for them to get their idea out. Strangely, this guardian angel of the law is only meant to protect them and not their critics.
9. The Passive-Aggressive Apology
What better way of looking like a big man than by saying you're sorry? You don't actually have to be sorry, or admit you did anything wrong, or stop arguing or insulting people. As long as you use the word "sorry" it's clearly and apology, and anyone who complains that you haven't stopped doing what you're apologizing for, and haven't even admitted it, is a bad person who can't let things go.
10. Unbelievable Credentials
What proof do you have that this guy is not, as he claims, a physicist, a doctor, a Supreme Court Justice, a former Delta Force assassin, a Hollywood director, and Strunk from Strunk & White? It's the internet, you'll never be able to prove he isn't who he says! Well, except for the little matter of him not knowing the slightest thing about any of those subjects. Curses!
11. The Edgy Card
This is a variant of the Super Tunnel Vision above, but it's so prevalent it needs a special mention. Do you dislike one of this persons jokes or artworks? It's not because it's bad or poorly done or doesn't make any sense. It's because YOU DON'T GET IT, MAN. It's too ironic for you to understand, or possibly so offensive that your puritan sensibilities reject it. It must be one or the other.
That's it. It took me a long time to copy it verbatim, so I hope you read through all of it. Remember these next time you get into a silly internet argument.
Disclaimer: I am simply re-writing the key ideas of a Cracked article, these are not my own personal ideas. If you want more information, please click the link: http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
With that out of the way here I go.
1. Winning by Losing
However badly you have been embarrassed or disproven by this person, it turns out it was all part of their master plan to get that reaction out of you, to prove some kind of point they cannot seem explain. They honestly seem to think that despite flailing uselessly in making their original argument, they are smooth enough to convince people they are a master puppeteer pulling everyone's strings.
2. The Pity Riposte
When someone throws out words like "droll" and "pathetic" and "amused" and generally trying to talk like a wealthy James Bond villain, he comes across less like the confident, cigar-smoking fellow he is imagining and more like a man who has been pantsed attempting to convince clothed people that they are the ones that should feel foolish
(The frequent Escapists may recognize this one from any argument in any one of these forums)
3. The Backtrack
If you can't unsay something you just realized is horribly wrong, the next best thing is to claim you've never said it. This is an extremely ballsy maneuver on a forum without an edit function, and usually forces reliance on the old, "Oh, you just misinterpreted what I said" maneuver.
4. Super Tunnel Vision
So, they've dismantled your argument and shredded all your points. Have they taken everything away from you? No! You still have your dig- no, wait, that's gone. There must be something though! Aha! Someone mentioned you made a grammar error. Attack it with all your might! Surely this is the foundation of all their arguments. Don't get distracted by the evidence or anything, man! Eyes on the prize!
5. Be Your Own Wingman
Creating a second account to agree with your first is most often called "Sockpuppeting", but "Wingman" sounds sadder. The "Reverse Wingman" is a variation where the second account jumps on the band-wagon making fun of the first one, apparently in an attempt to help the second account to become "the popular one" that the poster will continue to use.
6. Hotel California Guest
They keep checking out but they never leave. Sometimes they demand to be banned or have their account deleted because this is a way of talking like you are done with the site without actually having to give up the last word. This also sets them up for item #1 above when they can claim their banning was just what they wanted and you played into their hands.
7. The Innocent Question
Classic passive-aggression technique with the easy fallback of "I was just asking questions!" which plays critics off as suppressors of ideas and critical thinking. Questions include "Can this 9/11 I just stumbled upon be real???" or "Why is it taboo to just explore what makes different races smarter than others?" See, because they're not saying one race is better than another. They're ASKING.
8. First Amendment Reinterpretation
Activist judges have nothing on internet people, who reinterpret an amendment guaranteeing them freedom from government repression as a law protecting them from any criticism of their ideas and even requiring other people to spend money creating and maintaining a platform for them to get their idea out. Strangely, this guardian angel of the law is only meant to protect them and not their critics.
9. The Passive-Aggressive Apology
What better way of looking like a big man than by saying you're sorry? You don't actually have to be sorry, or admit you did anything wrong, or stop arguing or insulting people. As long as you use the word "sorry" it's clearly and apology, and anyone who complains that you haven't stopped doing what you're apologizing for, and haven't even admitted it, is a bad person who can't let things go.
10. Unbelievable Credentials
What proof do you have that this guy is not, as he claims, a physicist, a doctor, a Supreme Court Justice, a former Delta Force assassin, a Hollywood director, and Strunk from Strunk & White? It's the internet, you'll never be able to prove he isn't who he says! Well, except for the little matter of him not knowing the slightest thing about any of those subjects. Curses!
11. The Edgy Card
This is a variant of the Super Tunnel Vision above, but it's so prevalent it needs a special mention. Do you dislike one of this persons jokes or artworks? It's not because it's bad or poorly done or doesn't make any sense. It's because YOU DON'T GET IT, MAN. It's too ironic for you to understand, or possibly so offensive that your puritan sensibilities reject it. It must be one or the other.
That's it. It took me a long time to copy it verbatim, so I hope you read through all of it. Remember these next time you get into a silly internet argument.
