Curt on arguing

So here is the process I use to research (attack) opposing positions.

Your opponent will never agree with you. Your objective is to educated him through repetition, and to eliminate his means of obtaining confirmation, signals, and status from his conceptual peers.

Construct a criticism, and a solution. (libertarianism or Russian involvement in Ukraine)

Look for comment streams with elaborate but rhetorically weak arguments. (rothbarianism or russian moral equivalency).

Watch for a few weeks so that you understand the general arguments that they make. (haunt blogs and fb pages)

Create an aggressive, full frontal attack, in order to draw attention and fire. use loaded language, framed language, every thing possible to inflame the audience.

Use their attacks on you as opportunities to repeat the central argument.

Never show anger. Treat them as ‘cute’. Stick to the facts. Repeat the central argument.

They will try to rally. Try to shame. Try to ridicule. Try ad hominems. Try straw men. And every other fallacy.

Answer every single person who responds by showing their fallacy, then close by repeating the central argument. The purpose of responding is to repeat the central argument and show that they are dishonest in debate.

At this point, after two to five days, you have already succeeded in controlling the discourse, and eliminating the sense of comfort, familiarity and safety that they have on the forum, but now, you want to defeat your enemy completely.

So keep up the attack, and make fresh ones, until they bring in their ‘best’, who will undoubtedly have confidence that he can defeat you. This individual will seek status by showing his dominance. If you defeat this individual you defeat the ‘team’.

At this point, the others will largely drop out except for cheers from the peanut gallery. You now have control of the discourse.

Now that you have someone who can actually conduct a debate rather than rally, shame, ridicule, and throw fallacies, agree with his true and empirically stated points, and repeat the central argument.

Keep this up until you exhaust him.

At this point you have killed the venue as a means of self-reinforcing justification, and yo have probably repeated your central argument a hundred times. And it is now part of their conceptual vernacular.

They will eventually try to ban you. At which point if you have conducted yourself with humor, rather than personal attacks, you can argue that they can’t defend their ideas, repeat the central position.

It’s a yeoman’s labor. But it works. You can accomplish by repetition what you can not accomplish by persuasion.