How not to debate someone

When you enter into a debate with someone, it usually means that you and the other party in question have disagreeing views regarding a particular topic or subject. However, you and the other party sit down and have a civil discussion and this is what a debate is. You both have opinions contrary to one another's and have agreed to have a civil discussion as to why you believe that way - to walk a mile in the other person's shoes so to speak.

In today's Internet based society however, it is a different story, where you cannot classify the arguments, the outraged responses and the: "I don't care what you say to me, but I ain't changing my mind" mindset as a debate on the most controversial topics and subjects that are plaguing even the civilised society in any country.

The basic elements of the 'debates' or 'discussions' that are prevalent in today's Internet based society comes mostly from trolls and paid shills employed by PR firms and big corporations to take down legitimate opponents are:

1. Name calling,
2. Strawman arguments,
3. Hypocrisy,
4. Getting emotional or knee jerk reactions even towards the most objective criticisms offered or presented,
5. Hostile or condescending attitude and behaviour towards any opposing or dissenting viewpoints presented or proposed,
6. Using the: "You're not a <insert profession here>" argument to shut down or neutralise the opponent, and
7. Fearmogering tactics used instead of accentuating the positives of the arguments being presented.

I will now expound on each one of the above elements. A lot of this stuff springs from the paid shills and the trolls on the Internet who are nothing more than armchair bloggers or attention grabbers:

Name Calling

One of the easiest and the most convenient way of shutting down your opponent who has a dissenting opinion on a topic or subject at hand. I find it hypocritical that the platforms delete any comments or posts that use specific words that their automated system identifies and goes in for the kill almost immediately, and the person whose comments and or posts have been deleted or restricted has to fight the system and try their darndest to get themselves reinstated, where as there are others out there who use similar words and aren't dealt with promptly and nothing happens to them.

Strawman arguments

A strawman argument is basically a type of argument that doesn't address the original argument. Instead, the arguer puts forth counter arguments to arguments that is completely unrelated to the original set of arguments put forth by the other party and starts attacking the other party.

For example: If someone suggests an alternative solution towards a given problem, issue or epidemic at hand, the person responding would respond to this by going completely off course or off track, leading to not even addressing the original argument at hand. Berating the opponent is also part of this dirty game.

Hypocrisy

This is extremely common place when it comes to arguments and responses to arguments. For instance, radicals, televangelists and or evangelists engage in hypocrisy. Hypocrisy simply means you say one thing and you end up doing the exact opposite of what you have said or claimed. You may not be able to recognise it or spot it right away, but it is prevalent and it happens one too many times. It is a demon that can be subtle.

Getting emotional or knee jerk reactions even towards the most objective criticism offered or presented

Happens all the time on the Internet and has slowly migrated into real life arguments. When you offer a viewpoint or a criticism, often the response is either a knee jerk reaction instead of addressing the original criticism or viewpoint being acknowledged. One of the most effective ways to shut down arguments or dissenting opinions by getting super emotional about it at times when the name calling doesn't work as expected.

Hostile or condescending attitude and behaviour towards any opposing or dissenting viewpoint

Things can get a little hostile when the responder to criticisms and arguments sees that his/her arguments are either not being acknowledged or when someone wants to shut you down because you hold an opposing viewpoint. This is uncivil and another sure fire way of shutting down a debate or an opponent. It is also childish especially when the hostile behaviour results in the responder behaving like an 8 year old baby: throwing temper tantrums that is.

Using the: "You're not a <insert profession here>" argument to shut down or neutralise your opponent

I see this way too many times and it is quite frankly laughable. It also adds to the childish attitude and behaviour mentioned in the previous point at hand. If something is well researched and reported on, sometimes the debater or the responder to the claim will often resort to using this line of counter argument. It has nothing to do with the professionalism of the claim when you don't consider the fact that the researcher may have asked experts in the field or professionals in the field and then is reporting this. This is the kind of stuff that college essays and reports do. The essay writer researches and reports on it.

I also see journalists use this excuse when it comes to celebrities and other people reporting on or talking about a particular topic. The two examples that I can think of springs from the use of equipment in a profession (filmmaking) and health. This has got to stop or at least the mentality needs to dissolve in some way, shape or form.

Fearmongering tactics used instead of accentuating the positives of the arguments being presented

This usually happens when controversial topics and or subjects are debated about. For example, when Australian, New Zealand and the US supreme courts where considering legalizing same sex marriages, the naysayers immediately switched to fearmongering mode, trying to tell us that the world was going to come to an end and how that was going to lead to the other and a whole bunch of other stuff that the naysayers were arguing against the issue. They even had the stinking audacity to bring up the children and use them as a shield. They argued how a kid deserved a mother and a father instead of addressing how a kid is better off in a two parent household than in a one parent household.

So bottom line is that is how you don't have a debate. I was taught to always look at or consider another perspective or another point of view so long as the opposing point of view doesn't take extreme measures to try and implement a given opposing viewpoint as law of the land.

When you shut down a debate, you are in effect demonstrating your uncivil side or are revealing your extreme bias towards the situation. If the debate involves actual data to support a set of arguments for a given topic or subject, understand that this information can change and you can say things like: "based on available data at the present time, I have concluded that <insert conclusion here>, which is subject to change as the data changes overtime." This line of thinking and responding is healthy and will promote your acknowledgement of another person's viewpoint.

So, whatever topic you are debating on, make it a good civil one.