The Parky Shouty Down Argument

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

Ahem. One has been but a passing stranger here of late, but I shall make up henceforth with some erudite posts.

I have recentlty been involved in an alleged 'debate' on the topic of Multiculturalism, with someone who clearly had a bee in their bonnet about it and - to put it politely - couldn't restrain their passion for the subject.

Namely, they started deploying what is known amongst some of my freinds as the 'Parky Shouty Down Argument' which revolves around using lots of capitals (in a mimic of shouting) and derogatory language towards the other party.

This then leads to two points:

One: once someone starts shouting at you in a debate - not neccessarily through loss of temper but through sheer aggressive 'debating' technique, is there any point continuing? When every point you make is dismissed and smacked down out of hand, is it possible to continue and make something of it, or is it best to walk away and declare it a loss?

In the debate that sparked this, i've opted to walk, and the subsequent response was sneering and implying a savage defeat for me, as expected - designed to frustrate and provoke me further, but I can resist as I know nothing further lies down the path other than sheer exasperation. I rather weakly, snapped when I parted and left after administering a hail of abuse, knowing it was wasted but affording me some small satisfaction.

Two: There seems to be a style of attack within a the debate which whilst not quite directly being an ad hominem attack is nonetheless using specific language and emphasis to diminish the opinions of the opponent. I have notably picked this up in the terminology of the right when they are on the attack. Specifics are below:

1) To describe someones comments as being delivered in a 'shrill' tone, thus trying to mark them in the readers mind as being delivered in an irritating and frenzied tone and thus weaker.

2) To describe a position as 'smug' as if it is inherently looking down on others.

3) Use of the term 'lazy', to try and indicate that if it was only thought about, the position would be abandoned and the other's view accepted.

Has anyone else encountered this, or got any other examples?

The fundamental question raised herein is, once you feel civility has left a discussion, is there any point continuing?

[Utter Shit]

There are tons of different ways of debating on the internet that can mask a fundamental lack of knowledge on the topic. And if you don't agree with me, you probably haven't done enough research.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

There are tons of different ways of debating on the internet that can mask a fundamental lack of knowledge on the topic. And if you don't agree with me, you probably haven't done enough research.

I've seen many of the examples from point 2 in my post in print in national newspapers...

[Pythov]

'O YOU HAVEN'T!

and

I will take your silence as Fact that I have won...'


Are these the type of things you mean?
If they are then I think you are best to 'walk' away.

Obviously you have enough intelligence to leave the exchange, unless..

..you hae solid arguement, backed up by sources, and (most impotantly), friends/net collegues.

[lazyhour]

There are tons of different ways of debating on the internet that can mask a fundamental lack of knowledge on the topic. And if you don't agree with me, you probably haven't done enough research.

I've seen many of the examples from point 2 in my post in print in national newspapers...

He was joking, wasn't he?  As in, "you probably haven't done enough research" being one of the ways of winning debates on the internet.  Or is there something else I'm not getting?

Anyway, you've all missed the most important one:

YOUR GAY!!!1

Or, actually, my personal favourite:

You need to get laid / get a life / get a girlfriend etc.  My blood boils at this one.

[Utter Shit]

There are tons of different ways of debating on the internet that can mask a fundamental lack of knowledge on the topic. And if you don't agree with me, you probably haven't done enough research.

I've seen many of the examples from point 2 in my post in print in national newspapers...

He was joking, wasn't he?  As in, "you probably haven't done enough research" being one of the ways of winning debates on the internet.  Or is there something else I'm not getting?

Anyway, you've all missed the most important one:

YOUR GAY!!!1

Or, actually, my personal favourite:

You need to get laid / get a life / get a girlfriend etc.  My blood boils at this one.

Yeah, I was joking...*embarassed*

One that I've found recurrent over the years (this is particularly relevant to football, when debating about whether a team will win the league, whether a team will buy a player, whether a player will turn out to be good etc) is 'you'll see in a few months, I'm right'....a few months later, 'I don't remember saying that'.

Also, two instances at opposite ends of the 'posts = opinion relevance' concept...

'Yeah, sure, whatever. Newbies :rolleyes:'

OR

'Yeah ok man with 10,000 posts...hey man why don't you stop spending your whole fucking life arguing online and get a girlfriend, you loser'

[gazzyk1ns]

My blood boils at this one.

Hey chill out man, stop spending too much time on the net, get out there and shag loads of women like me.

[Bogey]

You need to get laid / get a life / get a girlfriend etc.  My blood boils at this one.

Oh christ yes.

It's a well known fact that people only get upset or passionate about things because they haven't had a good shag. And this is because they're losers.
Girls only want to shag men who don't care about anything and hence have a life. It all makes perfect sense.
You might just as well say, "go and have some heroin".
For fuck's sake.

And of course this can go for being interested in pretty much anything.
Except football perhaps.

[Purple Tentacle]

Girls only want to shag men who don't care about anything...

Unfortunately this does seem to be true a lot of the time.

Girls want to be FRIENDS with someone sensitive and possibly homeo-sexual, and get big fat gristle off BMW-man.

And that's a FACT.

It was in Stupid White Men, which proves it.

[Utter Shit]

You might just as well say, "go and have some heroin".

I actually got that from some crazed anti-drugs propoganda merchant on a forum once, after I let it slip that I'd tried cocaine. Literally EVERY time this person disagreed with me, he/she would just say 'yeah, well you're a junkie, what do you know?'

Personally I think a little nose candy might have evened him/her out. But then, what do I know...

[Bogey]

get big fat gristle off BMW-man.

I alluded to this in t'other thread.
I refuse to believe it.
As far as I can see, it's the same as the "all blokes, whilst they may enjoy the companionship, conversational skills and so on of their "other", secretly want to shag Jordan/(insert bimbo) etc." idea. (Is this the hetero-male equivalent?)
Does the dichotomy necessarily have to exist? I really don't think it does.
Unless you're thick... but then you'd only want to shag Jordan so there'd be no dichotomy. Hrmmm.....

[gazzyk1ns]

Girls only want to seem to shag BMW man because the... opposite (sort of) is true.

It's that BMW men are always shagging girls, because they are physically attractive and confident. Thus a high percentage of women you know will be shagging BMW men... and it's down to the way those men are, not because women "only go for cunts".

Ignore that fact though, it is unfair that some complete wankers get good women just because they're physically attractive and confident but you can't do anything about it, getting in a strop and acting depressed about it* will only degrade your own life and progress.

Just try to beat the wankers to the good women, if you try hard enough then you'll succeed.



*If you ever manage to not get in a strop and act depressed after being turned down/screwed over by a girlie... come and tell me how, will you?

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

Internet discussions can regularly turn into a contest as to who will win the argument rather than who is correct over what they are discussing. I usually get dragged into arguments, or drag people into arguments, but I guess once the actual subject of discussion comes after the attempt to get one over on the arguer, it's time to walk away, or 'agree to disagree'.

Some of the others made good points about the "You're sad" style arguers, which I also agree with.