Rules of Internet Debate

I made this for another message board, but it might come in handy if things start gettin' chippy up in dis bitch:

In response to popular indifference (and just in case this was originally posted in an ogt thread. and subsequently deleted in a fit of pique), we present

The Rules of Asshelmets Debate (heretofore uncodified):

DEBATE LOSS CONDITIONS

you lose…

a) if you lose all your cities and bases

a1) …if you are so persuaded by the arguments and facts presented by your opponent that you concede his (or her) position is more true/accurate/enlightened than the one with which you started. This has, in fact, never happened, but it is still in the rules. Like the drop kick in football.

sauce) …if you declare yourself the "WINNAR LOLOL!!!", you are, in fact, the loser.

() …if you are Calg.

)) …if you declare that you are abandoning the debate because your opponent is obviously an obsessed internet looser who cares WAAAAY too much about shit that doesn't have anything to do with him...you do in fact lose. Even though you are almost certainly correct.

0) Conversely, if you are the person who cares waaaay too much about winning an argument on the internet, you also are a looser. Who loses.

DEBATE VICTORY CONDITIONS:
None. Except in the Special Olympics sense in which we are ALL winnars lol, nobody ever wins an internet debate. Also, if you MAKE UP special criteria by which you are indeed the winner, you lose.


SPECIAL RULES:

1) Fisking is sometimes the single best method of response, especially if there are multiple evidentiary points or terms of a sequential argument. It is good etiquette to fisk using bold, italic, or colored text. Note that this last does NOT refer to Ebonics. Racist.

!!) Don't listen to the 'tl, dr' crowd. Just because some people's reading ability is compromised if they are chewing gum at the same time doesn't mean you have to tard everything down.

II) Quote pyaramids, consecutive posts, linking vs. quoting…we don’t care. "Post what thou will shall be the whole of the law of this messageboard."

1) Off-topic is encouraged. Off-topic is creative destruction. All art is off-topic. Plus, some of us have short attention spans.

d) The more heated and serious the debate thread, the greater the need for pR0n.

IV) No evidence is automatically disconfirmed or considered authoritative by reason of its source. You can find bullshit in CDC or UN reports and truth in the most slanted blog. Sometimes.

9) No limit on flaming, unless it entirely replaces argument. The exception would be to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of the board's fine herd bevy school cohort of Gyno-Americans.

&) Slippery Slope Fallacy, Ad Hominem Attacks, Non Sequitors, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Straw Men, etc…such offenses to logic, reason and the rules of rhetoric are only forbidden IF YOUR OPPONENT CATCHES THEM.

DEBATE PENALTIES:
We are flexible in our observance of Godwin's Law (sometimes it really DOES come back to the Nazis) but there are many penalties for similar offenses, of varying degrees of seriousness*:

Illegal Use of Fascist: almost never used legally. If you have to look up the definition of ‘fascism’, don’t use it. If you think you ‘kinda know what it means’, don’t use it. If you know the definition but actually mean to say ‘totalitarianism’, don’t use it.

Nonexistent Formation: If the arguments you present actually address a misrepresentation, oversimplification, or re-interpretation of the argument your opponent actually made...this is penalized by 15 yards and loss of down in the penalty box and a hefty fine. Also, the other poster is awarded first base and given two free throws.

Over The Top: hyperbole and hysterical extrapolation, e.g.: the impending collapse of civil society from failure to enforce speed limit laws.

Nazi Prior to the Snap: not only referencing Nazis, but doing it out of left field. As, "Soybean subsidies?? That's JUST HOW NAZI GERMANY STARTED!!"

Two Faggots in Motion: posters simultaneously abandon rational debate and play the 'yuo=teh gay lol!' card.

Ineligible Credibility: introduction of personal attributes or experiences in lieu of fact or argument. As "What the ****** do you know about it? YOU don't have any kids!" or "You know nothing about race. I roomed with a black guy!" etc, etc...

Off Chomsky: Some sources have such a consistent and powerful slant that introduction of material from them unavoidably introduces a complex of other (unexamined) assumptions, many not germaine to the topic at hand. Chomsky is one of them. And Chomsky is another.

And many more to be made up arbitrarily at a later date.


*-possibly not the best word for the list that follows, eh?

Trollificus wrote:

I made this for another message board, but it might come in handy if things start gettin' chippy up in dis bitch:

In response to popular indifference (and just in case this was originally posted in an ogt thread. and subsequently deleted in a fit of pique), we present

The Rules of Asshelmets Debate (heretofore uncodified):

DEBATE LOSS CONDITIONS

you lose…

a) if you lose all your cities and bases

a1) …if you are so persuaded by the arguments and facts presented by your opponent that you concede his (or her) position is more true/accurate/enlightened than the one with which you started. This has, in fact, never happened, but it is still in the rules. Like the drop kick in football.

sauce) …if you declare yourself the "WINNAR LOLOL!!!", you are, in fact, the loser.

() …if you are Calg.

)) …if you declare that you are abandoning the debate because your opponent is obviously an obsessed internet looser who cares WAAAAY too much about shit that doesn't have anything to do with him...you do in fact lose. Even though you are almost certainly correct.

0) Conversely, if you are the person who cares waaaay too much about winning an argument on the internet, you also are a looser. Who loses.

DEBATE VICTORY CONDITIONS:
None. Except in the Special Olympics sense in which we are ALL winnars lol, nobody ever wins an internet debate. Also, if you MAKE UP special criteria by which you are indeed the winner, you lose.


SPECIAL RULES:

1) Fisking is sometimes the single best method of response, especially if there are multiple evidentiary points or terms of a sequential argument. It is good etiquette to fisk using bold, italic, or colored text. Note that this last does NOT refer to Ebonics. Racist.

!!) Don't listen to the 'tl, dr' crowd. Just because some people's reading ability is compromised if they are chewing gum at the same time doesn't mean you have to tard everything down.

II) Quote pyaramids, consecutive posts, linking vs. quoting…we don’t care. "Post what thou will shall be the whole of the law of this messageboard."

1) Off-topic is encouraged. Off-topic is creative destruction. All art is off-topic. Plus, some of us have short attention spans.

d) The more heated and serious the debate thread, the greater the need for pR0n.

IV) No evidence is automatically disconfirmed or considered authoritative by reason of its source. You can find bullshit in CDC or UN reports and truth in the most slanted blog. Sometimes.

9) No limit on flaming, unless it entirely replaces argument. The exception would be to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of the board's fine herd bevy school cohort of Gyno-Americans.

&) Slippery Slope Fallacy, Ad Hominem Attacks, Non Sequitors, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Straw Men, etc…such offenses to logic, reason and the rules of rhetoric are only forbidden IF YOUR OPPONENT CATCHES THEM.

DEBATE PENALTIES:
We are flexible in our observance of Godwin's Law (sometimes it really DOES come back to the Nazis) but there are many penalties for similar offenses, of varying degrees of seriousness*:

Illegal Use of Fascist: almost never used legally. If you have to look up the definition of ‘fascism’, don’t use it. If you think you ‘kinda know what it means’, don’t use it. If you know the definition but actually mean to say ‘totalitarianism’, don’t use it.

Nonexistent Formation: If the arguments you present actually address a misrepresentation, oversimplification, or re-interpretation of the argument your opponent actually made...this is penalized by 15 yards and loss of down in the penalty box and a hefty fine. Also, the other poster is awarded first base and given two free throws.

Over The Top: hyperbole and hysterical extrapolation, e.g.: the impending collapse of civil society from failure to enforce speed limit laws.

Nazi Prior to the Snap: not only referencing Nazis, but doing it out of left field. As, "Soybean subsidies?? That's JUST HOW NAZI GERMANY STARTED!!"

Two Faggots in Motion: posters simultaneously abandon rational debate and play the 'yuo=teh gay lol!' card.

Ineligible Credibility: introduction of personal attributes or experiences in lieu of fact or argument. As "What the ****** do you know about it? YOU don't have any kids!" or "You know nothing about race. I roomed with a black guy!" etc, etc...

Off Chomsky: Some sources have such a consistent and powerful slant that introduction of material from them unavoidably introduces a complex of other (unexamined) assumptions, many not germaine to the topic at hand. Chomsky is one of them. And Chomsky is another.

And many more to be made up arbitrarily at a later date.


*-possibly not the best word for the list that follows, eh?

I love it, I will forever follow these guidelines