Tuesday, December 12, 2006

'How to debate on the Internet' by Scott Adams

After yesterday's post, I seriously wondered to what length one can go to find reasoning, once he finds the conclusions beautiful.

I sent the link to some of my friends as well, and few of their responses, while they sit in my Inbox, remind me of an old post by Scott Adams.

- Portion of Scott's post begins -

If you are new to the Internet, allow me to explain how to debate in this medium. When one person makes any kind of statement, all you need to do is apply one of these methods to make it sound stupid. Then go on the offensive.

  1. Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)
  1. Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.
  1. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.
  1. Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.
  1. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.
  1. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.
  1. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.
Those are the basic tools that come to mind.

- Portion of Scott's post ends -

I am quite a fan of Scott Adams, regular reader of his blog, like him despite occasional disagreements, and do a good job of recommending God's Debris to my friends. Hence, I think he wouldn't have a problem with my stealing from his blog entry and posting here. I am also counting on the fact that I lack the talent to write anything that'll make people laugh out loud and that deserves some sympathy from the best professional humorist around.

The original post, by the way, is titled Results of Why I'm Stupid, but you need to know the context of past few posts by Scott in order to appreciate this one fully. I have pasted only the part that can be understood without context. You can find the original post here.

No comments: