I thought I’d post this, because apparently some people have no idea how to do informal debates on Twitter/X. Sorry, I’ll probably always call it Twitter. Yes, I found the need to post this, because apparently a lot of people don’t know how to do an informal Twitter debate.
Of course, you have to be concise beyond a fault, because Twitter has a character limit.
Since I’ve had VERY good exchanges with people on Twitter, and certain people have shown they don’t know how to have an intelligent dialog, I decided to write this guide.
Breaking The Rules
If you do certain things, you end the debate. Not only do you end it, you automatically lose it. Insulting people (“You’re a special kind of stupid…”) ends the debate automatically in your loss. Resorting to hatred, hate speech or hate behavior costs you the debate. This especially includes Antisemitism, like the guy who wanted to post every Jewish person on line and make me apologize for their choices or behavior. Sorry, not going to defend Howard Stern. It would be as wrong as me posting every Gentile online and demanding they apologize for their behavior. Understand, I will not engage in racial hatred. I ask the same of you.
Knowing the Rules
Be calm. Don’t flame.
Be respectful. I want to respect you. I’ve had VERY good discussions with people online who were respectful and even friendly. There was a really nice Atheist online years ago who called himself Atomic Mutant who was not only respectful, nice, intelligent, but astoundingly funny. Man, I miss that guy!!!
Make your point. Please. I want to interact with your argument.
Know your material. Not only what you’re trying to quote and making sure you have a correct citation, but if you quote “protocols of Zion” or the long debunked “Khazar theory” you’re going to do really poorly in the debate.
Be certain of your sources. There’s nothing that derails a good discussion like someone who quotes a book they read by someone that makes faulty argumentation, cites untrustworthy sources, randomly cherry-picks facts , etc. Like the books by the guys who say “Fiction writers by law have to write things that are true, and Middle Earth and Hogwarts are real behind the Antarctic Ice Wall, and Microsoft and Gulf Oil have to hide this from you based on international law.” Yes, someone has argued this with me.
Allow the other to respond. Wait your turn.
When they’re done, move on to the next point.
What actions cost me points in the debate?
Abort, Retry, Fail arguments. For those who never dealt with DOS machines and floppy drives, this was the error you got when you forgot to put a floppy disk in the machine. “Drive D: not ready – Abort, Retry, Fail?” The acronym is ARF.
What is an ARF argument? That’s a repeating of an argument when asked to defend the argument. “The Housing Market is crashing.” “Interesting, can you point me to statistics showing this?” “I don’t have to, because the housing market is clearly crashing.”
You didn’t lose the debate, but in your interlocuter’s mind you just lost points.
“Challenging my narrative rage.” Prevalent in political arguments, this is when someone believes an argument emotionally but has no basis for defending the viewpoint logically. This usually is present when you suffer cognitive dissonance, the holding of two incompatible or contradictory beliefs, and the interlocuter challenges this resulting worldview of the incompatible beliefs.
If this happens to you, stop. Calm down. Examine the argument. Examine the cognitive dissonance in you, and ask yourself if you’ve been brainwashed, or if there’s validity in the other argument? I encountered this recently when someone challenged the Electoral College concept. He managed to ensue narrative rage and ARF arguments both at the same time.
Mis-Citation. Doesn’t impact you too badly. You can recover if the opponent points it out with a “Sorry, yes, you’re correct. Thanks. Had a brain burp.”
Wikipedia/Snopes quoting. I miss the old Snopes. Used to be great – I used them all the time to prove pop rocks didn’t kill Mikey.. Then all of a sudden they became an outlet for narrative rage by posting mis-information and presenting it as truth. Few debate opponents will accept a Snopes citation anymore.
Quoting Wikipedia as a source is exceptionally untrustworthy – and yes, to my amazement, someone did that to me. Listing a 600 page book as a source proves nothing – because people will list “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (long proved to be a forgery) as a source, and Wikipedia does nothing about it. And if I have an editing account, I can just go in, remove your citation and replace it with “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” instead. If you don’t believe me, try submitting a Thesis or Dissertation to a University (although lately, antisemitism is so entrenched at most Universities now that they’d probably accept a reference citing the Protocols of Zion), and see how fast your Thesis is rejected.
Straw Man Arguments. This is far too common. That would be me arguing Ford beats Chevy, then constructing arguments of “Chevy owners be…” and then demolishing my own arguments. costs you mega points in a debate.
Ad Hominem arguments. This is attacking the person because you can’t answer their argument. One of these seriously imperils your arguments. Two ends the debate in your loss.
Joel Versus Mike arguments. Known among MST3K fans, this is the endless arguments about who is better, Joel Hodges or Mike Nelson? This was settled years ago, people. Mike is better. Leave comments below 😉
IQ Arguments. Dealt with above in the “costing you the debate” section, but I’m going to warn you what will happen if you try it with me. I was tested with the Torrence Evaluation tests and IQ tests by a rival organization to MENSA. My scores were off the charts, and my IQ was pegged at 174. In 9th Grade.
Anyone who tries the “You’re a special kind of stupid” with me is going to be hit with a soul crushing, “My IQ is 174.” Not only did you lose the debate, you just humiliated yourself on the internet. Don’t do this. A lot of people have done just this with me. They’ll tell you there’s nothing more humiliating than seeing that when you’ve got a 100 IQ.
Assigning Homework. Yes, this is a thing. “Please watch my sixteen-part four hour per episode Youtube video series on this argument before I’ll discuss it.” If you can’t make your argument on your own, you can’t debate. I in turn could demand Arminians (people following the teachings of Jacob Arminius) that they read the 1689 Confession, the Westminster Confessions and all of Calvin’s Institutes before we debate. That’s not their job. MY job is to present MY argument. If I can’t do it, I lost the debate.
Standard Conclusion everyone skims or doesn’t even read…
Mike is better than Joel. Avoid the stumbling blocks and disqualifiers above, and your debate should be a friendly and respectful, enjoyable experience!
