You should always start your argument with an ad hominem and, if it doesn’t work, slowly work your way towards insulting your interlocutor, the highest form of rethoric
No no, that’s name calling already, you jumped straight to the top. You need to cloak your disdain in a civil tone, because remember the next step is going to tone policing. So something like, “I don’t think you have a lot of experience arguing on the internet seeing as you come from a much smaller instance.” is much better bait.
I thought it was a joke about starting an argument with an ad hominem.
:smuglord: actually, I think you’ll find that I did attack him personally instead of his underlying points, which according to rationalwiki, counts.
spoiler
It was/is but your bit was better. Admitting being wrong isn’t a step though. That’s also why I deleted it until you responded because I realized I’m not funny 😢
Its the recommended daily internet arguments per USDA guidelines.
At the bottom are your ad hominems, these lay a good foundation and give you the required dopamine for the day.
Then come your basic civility criticisms and tone policing to make sure everyone treats you with the respect you deserve.
Contradictions are of course necessary to make sure your position is represented and to make it harder for opposing views to get traction.
A few counterarguments here and there make sure that you get a bit of research done in order to be able to form new arguments. This is a good idea as arguments age over time and need to be replaced every so often.
A refutation is of course a long-term source of dopamine that you can refer back to in the upcoming days for a quick hit by marvelling at your own argument.
If you have taken care of all your daily internet argument requirements and still have time left, why then you get to do some name-calling. As a treat.
I don’t understand why it is structured as a pyramid
You should always start your argument with an ad hominem and, if it doesn’t work, slowly work your way towards insulting your interlocutor, the highest form of rethoric
i’M mR EtHaLis fRoM SoME rAnDOm JeRk Off wEbSitE YoU’vE NevEr HeArD oF aNd i’M sO sMaRT i kNoW hOW tO DebAte PEopLe On tHe iNteRnEt.
No no, that’s name calling already, you jumped straight to the top. You need to cloak your disdain in a civil tone, because remember the next step is going to tone policing. So something like, “I don’t think you have a lot of experience arguing on the internet seeing as you come from a much smaller instance.” is much better bait.
That’s literally not what I’m doing but whatever.
I thought it was a joke about starting an argument with an ad hominem.
:smuglord: actually, I think you’ll find that I did attack him personally instead of his underlying points, which according to rationalwiki, counts.
spoiler
It was/is but your bit was better. Admitting being wrong isn’t a step though. That’s also why I deleted it until you responded because I realized I’m not funny 😢
spoiler
Your nickname betrays that lie
spoiler
The issue with ironic shitposting in a nutshell. I’m going to tap out though before we are under so many layers of irony the whole thing caves in
Its the recommended daily internet arguments per USDA guidelines.
Closer to the top, the better.