How do you debate ignorant hordes?

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-10-16 11:00am

On another board where I frequently get into debates, there is a large population of people who don't know what they're talking about, don't bother to read the thread, and just post a bunch of nearly identical posts agreeing with each other. Then they either run away or (occasionally) I can get one or two of them to argue with me. I call it the Wave o' Babies debating style: a bunch of people flood the thread with infantile posts demonstrating only the flimsiest of logic, then most of them ignore any responses.

How do you deal with this? My current strategy is to write the usual point-by-point rebuttals to a representative sample of the babies' posts and hope that I can get someone to reply---but usually anyone who replies to my posts just quietly vanishes after one or two rounds of responses. Is that victory? Is that a sign that I've changed someone's mind, or at least introduced the seed of doubt? Am I just wasting my time going up against a bunch of walls of ignorance? Is there any effective way to deal with these stupid cowardly me-tooers, short of having mod powers?

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-10-16 11:07am

One can always try and plant the seed of doubt. It may only come into fruition 1 in a 100 but at least its there. I used to have to do this in RL and most of the time I would wonder why, I would mostly get shouted down but I did convert some people away from bizarre positions even if most of the time I was getting the wall of sound.

In short, you're doing everything right, and there's not much more you can do about it.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2005-10-16 01:03pm

I'd try to find better company. Attempting to convince one moron of something is hard enough, trying to do the same to herd of morons is a waste of time.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-10-16 01:15pm

You don’t waste your time is my opinion. Its just the internet and debates on it just don’t matter, hen you run into a pack of morns your probably just wasting your time and giving yourself headaches. Many people simply will NEVER learn. Spend 1/10th the time you spend posting rebuttals to find a board with sensible people and you’d probably be much happier.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-10-16 01:20pm

sketerpot wrote:but usually anyone who replies to my posts just quietly vanishes after one or two rounds of responses. Is that victory?

Yes, I think it is. In a real conflict, he who runs away lose. Unfortunately, someone who runs away in a debate will invariably, sooner or later, come back and spew the same bullshit all over again (of course, dishonest people will do that even if they concede their points)...

Personally, I agree with Sirius. Don't go there if they're just a bunch of loons. Debating is no fun if the opponent is too stupid to realise when he's wrong (worse still if the majority of the audience is too stupid to realise it, which might be the case here). So yeah, maybe you should just leave. Any fun you get out of smacking them down, you could get from just reading the bullshit and knowing how to smack it down, since there wouldn't be anyone else around there to apprieciate your responses anyway.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-10-16 01:45pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:You don’t waste your time is my opinion. Its just the internet and debates on it just don’t matter, hen you run into a pack of morns your probably just wasting your time and giving yourself headaches. Many people simply will NEVER learn. Spend 1/10th the time you spend posting rebuttals to find a board with sensible people and you’d probably be much happier.

You disappoint me, Great Leader. I was expecting something to the sound of "You debate them with your main point. The point of your sword." or some heavy machinegun or explosive.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-10-16 01:58pm

sketerpot wrote: How do you deal with this? My current strategy is to write the usual point-by-point rebuttals to a representative sample of the babies' posts and hope that I can get someone to reply---but usually anyone who replies to my posts just quietly vanishes after one or two rounds of responses. Is that victory? Is that a sign that I've changed someone's mind, or at least introduced the seed of doubt? Am I just wasting my time going up against a bunch of walls of ignorance? Is there any effective way to deal with these stupid cowardly me-tooers, short of having mod powers?

Ah, one of those type of boards. Frankly, you're just wasting your time. I tried my hand at one of those before, and simply got fed up with it. I'd argue the point to death until one of the mods eventually locked it (they had a page limit there), and despite the fact that some of the morons in question conceded the point, they'd be back in another thread about a similar topic arguing for their original position as though the old one didn't count, nitpicking just about everything regarding my argument as to avoid the main point.

Course, when they start sending vitriol at you in PMs, it's a good indication the board should be just given up on. So, yeah, personally I'd leave the board. Combating hoards is largely futile.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-10-16 03:53pm

I've dealt with this kind of crap before, and I don't think there's anything you can do to "win" in the minds of these idiots. Even if you send them packing in the thread, they'll post the same, already-refuted crap in later threads, proving that they haven't learned a damn thing. My experience has taught me that the vast majority of internet idiots have a built in WOI. As Darth Wong has said before, you don't debate these idiots in the hopes of changing their minds. They never will. You debate them for the sake of any impressionable observers or fence sitters. If they see nothing but consensus on the board, they might think that the morons are right. However, if someone with brains debates the stupid masses, taking on a "representative sample" of their posts (as you put it), and points out all their logical fallacies and/or cowardice, some observers might just see the light. When I see at least a couple people joining in and agreeing with me, I take that as a sign of victory.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-10-16 04:16pm

Dooey Jo wrote:Personally, I agree with Sirius. Don't go there if they're just a bunch of loons. Debating is no fun if the opponent is too stupid to realise when he's wrong (worse still if the majority of the audience is too stupid to realise it, which might be the case here). So yeah, maybe you should just leave. Any fun you get out of smacking them down, you could get from just reading the bullshit and knowing how to smack it down, since there wouldn't be anyone else around there to apprieciate your responses anyway.

The thing about this board is that it does have a few very vocal intelligent people on it who regularly smack down bullshit, and there are some moderates, and a few people actually have changed their minds on things. But the majority is stupid, and gives no indication of having thought about the subjects they're spouting off about. I'm not debating at Rapture Ready or some completely insane place like that. Just a place with a lot of immature teenagers, most of them conservative.

Some people there have even PM'd me to thank me for changing their minds on something. That's rewarding. I just think that I would be a lot more effective if I knew how to deal better with the damn swarm.

Jim Raynor wrote:As Darth Wong has said before, you don't debate these idiots in the hopes of changing their minds. They never will. You debate them for the sake of any impressionable observers or fence sitters. If they see nothing but consensus on the board, they might think that the morons are right. However, if someone with brains debates the stupid masses, taking on a "representative sample" of their posts (as you put it), and points out all their logical fallacies and/or cowardice, some observers might just see the light. When I see at least a couple people joining in and agreeing with me, I take that as a sign of victory.

I'm hoping to change some minds of people I'm debating simply because it looks like a lot of them are just going by their initial emotional reactions. But mostly I'm going for observers. The problem with this is that observers should see fireworks and devastating smackdown-slugfests, but instead they see the same few tired arguments being tossed in the air and shot down again and again, so they get bored and leave the thread.

I guess what I really want to know is what goes on in the minds of those people who jump into a thread, post some repetitive crap, and then never return to that thread (or run off after a little debate). WTF is up with that?

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-10-16 04:34pm

Dooey Jo wrote:Yes, I think it is. In a real conflict, he who runs away lose.

I think real conflicts tend to be a little more complex, ever heard of a strategic retreat?

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2005-10-16 07:17pm

or a tactical withdrawal? I think that is the common term, as it doesn't have the word 'retreat'.

You're probably wasting your time with ignorant hordes. They'll probably just wind down to 'God loves you, and you don't see it. But deep down you know he exists blablabla'.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-16 08:34pm

In the hypothetical case where >90% of the forum population is composed of people who are lazy and stupid, the signal-to-noise ratio is just so low that there's no point even bothering to post. It's like trying to argue with grafitti on a bathroom stall downtown.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-10-16 09:12pm

There is a saying. "How do you stop a charging elephant? You do not." You don't try to fight the mob. That will just get you swarmed. Instead, you get the mob to pick a champion and you beat that champion.

Eezgot Datrots · Post by **Eezgot Datrots** » 2005-10-16 10:02pm

sketerpot wrote: How do you deal with this? My current strategy is to write the usual point-by-point rebuttals to a representative sample of the babies' posts and hope that I can get someone to reply---but usually anyone who replies to my posts just quietly vanishes after one or two rounds of responses. Is that victory? Is that a sign that I've changed someone's mind, or at least introduced the seed of doubt? Am I just wasting my time going up against a bunch of walls of ignorance? Is there any effective way to deal with these stupid cowardly me-tooers, short of having mod powers?

Why hello there, I do believe that I know the board you mean, since I also post there and merely lurk here, which might change eventually when dealing with idiots loses its appeal.

I used to have the same method as you. Looking at my past posts there, I am amazed at how in depth my responses were. Eventaully I stopped caring and my responses would dwindle in size and complexity, and take on more and more sarcasm.

I know all too well what it is like to have an opponent disappear. Usually it does not mean that you have changed their mind or won, rather it means that they cannot defeat you and they know it, but they are not prepared to give up their position despite the fact they can't defend it. When this happens, I will ride them about it, following them to other threads to see if they continue to make comments about whatever our debate subject was, then either linking them back to the original thread or continuing the debate there. I will try to get them to admit that they are wrong or that they cannot beat me, because that is the only way to get victory there, and it provided good ammunition to use later.

Occasionally, I will make a post calling them out, and then do nothing but mock them when they fail to win (sometimes they do not even get around to making any major posts), but mockery on that board is hard due to those omnipresent moderators and the fact that most of the members would not get subtlety if you stabbed them in the face with it.

As for the "me-tooers", I simply reply to tell them to read the sodding thread and realise that I have already refuted their post.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-10-17 03:56pm

Junghalli wrote:I think real conflicts tend to be a little more complex, ever heard of a strategic retreat?

Yeah yeah, you can call it whatever you want

But hey, maybe that's how they see it. They run away to live to fight another day. Lose the battle but win the war, so to speak...

sketerpot wrote:Some people there have even PM'd me to thank me for changing their minds on something. That's rewarding. I just think that I would be a lot more effective if I knew how to deal better with the damn swarm.

In that case you should try to come up with a way to make the stupid ones listen. Unfortunately, that is very hard. You can't do it through normal rational debate, because they won't understand any of it (pointing out a fallacious argument, for instance, should "turn" any intelligent person, but most people don't even seem know what the very word fallacy means), and you can't get their attention by swearing or something like that, because then they'll just think that you're insulting them. Even if you hound them after they disappear, they'll just refuse to comment or just lurk for a long period without having to change their minds at all. Maybe indoctrination is the only thing they really understand...

Tactics that I think would work very well on immature teenagers are things like appeals to authorities and related things. Appealing to common sense is almost sure to be effective too (because those are the tactics they use among themselves, and probably what convinced them in the first place). If you really want to make them see a point, you should study them and see what people they think are smart and probably would accept something from without question (like Einstein, for instance. No-one dares to question Einstein). Then you have that person support your cause, and that will probably sway quite a few of the bunch. Then, when you have "made them see the light", you could show them the real evidence behind your position. Perhaps an arguement would go like this:
"Hey! Did you know that Einstein was the one who first thought of this?"
"Really? Well in that case I suppose it does make some sense"
"That's right, it makes a lot of sense. But not only that, you can see for yourself that it makes sense. [insert easy to understand explanation about why this and that is true]. See?"
"Ya, that really does make a lot of sense!"
Another person: "Ya really, that is so cool!"
":mrgreen:"

If they're conservative, you might actually be able to appeal to the Bible. Be careful with that though, they might have read it (though almost certainly, most of them have not).

Unfortunately, the other intelligent people on that board would hate you for it, and smack you down real good. Plus, it's very fallacious and thus part of the Dark Side. If you intend to do it, you should let every one of them know it beforehand, and agree not to give you away, which could be very difficult. But remember that I personally don't think it's a very good idea, but on the other hand it's the only way that I can think of that might actually convince really stupid people about anything.

In short: To convince stupid people of anything, you will have to use a language they understand. Observe how they go about when they try to convince someone of something, because that is probably the way they were convinced about something in the first place. Use that tactic to convince them of something else, then when you have their attention, make them less dumb. Again, a really bad idea, and you should consider if it really is worth it. I think you're having too much confidence in humanity

It's the best/worst I can think of that could work, anyway... Maybe some people who used to be stupid could tell you what made them change their minds?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-17 06:15pm

Okay, now you're just insulting teenagers.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-10-18 07:24am

wolveraptor wrote:Okay, now you're just insulting teenagers.

Not all, just the stupid ones

Besides, it could probably work for any group of irrational people (yes, I know that not all teenagers are irrational).

Really, these people seems to be way better at convincing each other about things than rational debate could ever be (of course, that may or may not be true for sketerpot's board, but it goes for any such board that I know of). That's why I don't even try to convince them of anything. Because they won't listen to anything that can be called a true argument, and I really don't want to go about it their way.

Otherwise, you should read up on rhetoric. It is the ancient and evil art of persuading hordes of stupid people (of course, adapting your arguments to your audience is actually a rhetorical trick...).

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-10-18 08:01am

Honest debate will never be as effective rhetorical ploys and appeals to emotion, except for here, where stupid people get banned.

walsingham · Post by **walsingham** » 2005-10-25 09:30pm

sketerpot wrote:On another board where I frequently get into debates, there is a large population of people who don't know what they're talking about, don't bother to read the thread, and just post a bunch of nearly identical posts agreeing with each other. Then they either run away or (occasionally) I can get one or two of them to argue with me. I call it the Wave o' Babies debating style: a bunch of people flood the thread with infantile posts demonstrating only the flimsiest of logic, then most of them ignore any responses.

How do you deal with this?

It's good practice...to learn patience, to remain unflappable, to learn diplomacy, to formulate brief articulate to the point arguments...for the day when you need to stand in front of your school board and argue that teaching intelligent design to your children in a science class does not constitute science...or when you need to write a letter to convince your Congressman to support stem cell research...or when you need to defend yourself from a boss that derides you for some failure that is not your fault...or to explain to your neighbor that the gay lifestyle is not destroying Western Civilization...or...

-

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-25 09:52pm

Diplomacy to the idiots is necessary when the idiots have power over you. It is unnecessary otherwise; if some jackass with no actual power over me decides to come at me with creationist nonsense I will call it "a load of scientifically ignorant bullshit" right to his face, and I have done so on numerous occasions.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2005-10-25 10:22pm

I can only give advice on arguing with Creationists, because that's what I'm used to.

First rule is, don't participate in boards with draconian moderation or where you cannot start a thread or otherwise draw attention to yourself. Former is more important than the latter. I long for a well-run Creationist forum, but I'm tired of having long posts ignored or deleted also.

Second rule is, guide, don't insult. When dealing with Creationists, it helps especially well if they know that you have participated in multiple Bible Study groups, and are or were a Christian, and clearly have a fair understanding of the Bible. This means taking the side of one or the other on a theological point that you can provide meaningful insight on. You NEED this cred to debate creationists because, eventually, they will bring up philosophical and theological arguments for creationism and you will need to be able to provide a legitimate point of view that they will listen to.

It's important to avoid patronizing language, or language with too many special terms. To pick on an sd.netter, Kuroneko seems nearly incapable of writing a paragraph without pulling out at least one term that he doesn't first clearly define. This flies here, but where eyes will gloss over at the mere mention of 'isochronic', you need to cut WAAAAY down on that kind of language in order to be heard.

As an example, point-by-point rebuttals like you talk about making are considered patronizing by many, as well. If you feel you must respond in such a manner, try to find and address core points and general problems first, with the offer of elaborating on the missed points later, 'in the interest of keeping a concise argument'. Another option is to take major points and make new threads out of them.

The third rule is have them answer you, not the other way around, usually. If someone makes a long, elaborate post, you will want to wait until they start calling you (by name, not in general) out on not answering it.

The fourth rule is the general KISS principle. Keep it simple, stupid. You are explaining rocket science to toddlers, you will not be doing it in one fell swoop.

Case in point, isochronic dating:

Isochronic dating is the preferred method to date volcanic runoff, because it not only allows the measurement of a sample without knowing the original amount of the decay products, but it allows you to accurately determine the date of something you have no other reliable means of finding data for. The ICR's Grand Canyon Dating project is a wonderful example of this last point.

As you probably know, many elements have different isotopes. Uranium 234, 235, and 238, lead 206, 207, 208 and so on. When these substances are molten, these isotopes will mix freely via brownian motion, with an error on the order of several millionths. This last error, along with the limits of human precision, limits the ages described to millions of years, but younger dates are a whole new topic.

Now, each of those uranium isotopes have a different decay chain, ending in a different isotope. In particular, uranium 238 decays into lead 206, and uranium 235 decays into lead 207. Since these occur at different rates, the relevant decay products will build up at different rates.

Because their ratios were initially constant throughout a lava flow, by taking multiple samples from a given lava flow, it is possible to triangulate and determine the original amount of daughter material when the lava flow froze solid.

This, of course, is only meaningful if you take your samples from the same lava flow, but, if you take samples from multiple successive lava flows, you can determine an entirely different, but still scientifically meaningful, date. This is what the ICR's Grand Canyon dating project did. A free net cookie to the first creationist who guesses what they really dated :-)

----------------------------------

The answer is the rock that the volcano melted to erupt in the first place. Anyway, while I'd be legitimately accused of drastically oversimplifying the above, most creationists are MUCH more willing to read that then the relevant article on talk.origins.

You will naturally have to continue your debating regarding the constancy of radioactive decay, the speed of light, the quality of volcanic samples, other forms of isochronic dating, and so on, but by keeping your lessons short, and powerful, you will have a far greater effect.

In this manner, you are taking the offensive by educating them in 'how stuff works', which will squash many arguments before they start.

----------------------------------

Perhaps the most important point is to be witty. Humorous and readible. Make jokes that don't offend the sides involved seriously. Do poke fun at your own point of view, and go light on theirs.

You can make fun of a point, but don't be caustic about it.

"There has never been a beneficial mutation."

"Somehow I don't think those groups who are immune to AIDS would agree."

"Michael Behe's chart proves that light has been slowing down!"

"Don't you think it's odd that he excluded Kepler's, Newton's, and other extremely important early measurements, that just happened to be lower than c? I mean, if you are going to make a chart like this, you should include all of the relevant data."

Finally, keep your cool. Remember that you can succeed in multiple ways.

1: If several dozen creationists now accept one major point of 'evolution', that is a major success.
2: If one creationist finally comes to grips with reality, that is a major success.

Or whatever the equivelant is for who you're arguing with.

Hope that helps.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-25 10:29pm

I don't think anyone has ever made a YEC concede (at least not without months or years of contemplation), to be honest. But the middle-of-the-road people (usually people who have no great emotional hatred of evolution but have been fooled by deceptive rhetoric) can be brought back to the Light Side of the Force. One has to decide which kind of person you're dealing with.

Interestingly, the only success I've ever had with YECs face to face has been not to humour them, but to actually be much more brutal than I would be with a middle-of-the-road guy. The idea is to make him feel very, very small, in order to pound home to him the fact that he doesn't know jack shit and is way, way over his head, in order to make him actually feel afraid to bring up his stupidity to your face because he knows that you'll ass-rape him and make him look like an idiot. But this is more for the benefit of third-party observers, who need to be reminded of just how stupid a YEC is, so they will associate YEC with ignorance and lies. If the YEC himself is pushed by humiliation to investigate things even a little bit, that's just a bonus. Certainly, I've never heard of a YEC outright admitting he's wrong, at least not right away.

Mind you, the other reason for this harsh tactic is that a YEC will find a way to make a moral issue out of it no matter how carefully you tread; as far as he's concerned, materialism makes you a bad person already. So making a good impression is largely out of the question.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2005-10-25 10:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:Mind you, the other reason for this harsh tactic is that a YEC will find a way to make a moral issue out of it no matter how carefully you tread; as far as he's concerned, materialism makes you a bad person already. So making a good impression is largely out of the question.

This, unfortunately, does not work so well when outnumbered ten or more to one :-/ Especially when you don't have backup against the local creationist hero who got his master's degree in geology.

Though I did break out a beat stick when one of them declared that the second law of entropy also applied to open systems.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How do you debate ignorant hordes?

How do you debate ignorant hordes?

Re: How do you debate ignorant hordes?

Re: How do you debate ignorant hordes?

Re: How do you debate ignorant hordes?

Re: How do you debate ignorant hordes?

Re: How do you debate ignorant hordes?

Re: How do you debate ignorant hordes?

Re: How do you debate ignorant hordes?