What strategies have produced the best results for you when debating on other forums where you are severely outnumbered?
There’s really no good way, in my experience… Unless they’re stupid and you can strawman them or if you can summon help. If you address them in depth they’ll dodge questions and points and strawman your views into something they can deal with. Onlookers won’t read your response and only see the general disdain for your ideas and what you’ve written and assume that you’re stupid or at leas generally wrong. My only advice would be to be very aggressive and simple in what you’re saying
Sorry, that’s not very encouraging.
“My only advice would be to be very aggressive and simple”
I would say politeness and respect are keys to victory. Maybe you won’t crush them, but, as Milton Friedman said if I remember correctly, you have to be a nice person when you are talking about liberty. So yeah, even if you won’t crush them with fancy arguments or something like that, your opponents will see you as a nice person and, what is more important, those who haven’t yet decided what to believe will also see you as a nice person. If people think that you are a nice person, your beliefs will have at least some emotional appeal; on the other hand, if they think you’re an asshole, it’s very likely that they won’t like what you have to say.
^^^ this
if they think you’re an asshole, it’s very likely that they won’t like what you have to say
I find that on the interwebz people don’t care how nice you are. If you disagree with them you’re an idiot… And probably a Republican.
hack their computer, find out where they live, and kill their dog. Chop off the head, brand its face with “POWNED”, and put it in their kid’s bed. If they dont have kids i guess put it in their bed.
NEVER fails.
^
Remember, as long as it’s voluntary.
you know my voluntaryism theory have some flaws in it. So whenever i have a moral question about the NAP i think “WWCD” -what would cartman do.
here is a heated voluntary exchange between cartman and scott tenorman that escalated rather quickly, but i would say something like this should work to win many debates.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104191/chili-con-carnival#tab=related
Good thread idea.
Posting in ‘foreign’ forums can be enjoyable, educational and productive, if you have the right approach. Here is some advice:
- Be polite, courteous, respectful and humble at all times. Do not say anything that you wouldn’t say to someone in a bar while their friends are listening to your discussion. Do not belittle or embarrass anyone.
- Emphasise things you agree on; hone in on your points of divergence.
- Do not quote other people (i.e. Mises, Rothbard et al). Explain things in your own words.
- Do not tell people to go read/watch something. That would be rude. Post links only if and when they ask you where they can find out more information.
- If they ask you to read/watch something, do so, even if you know it will be wrong/irrelevant.
- Try to avoid introducing terms that they might define differently to you. Examples: government, coercion, voluntary, inflation, profit, free market, law, value, money, anarchy.
- If they introduce any of these terms, ask them to define them so there is no misunderstanding. Use their definitions when possible; do not insist on using your preferred definitions.
- Assume the person/people you are speaking to is/are well-intentioned, open-minded and honest.
- If someone says something that makes you angry or makes you think they are an idiot, do not respond straight away. Think about how to keep the discussion fruitful.
- Be curious; ask questions; do not assume someone holds a particular view.
- Do not post in multiple threads at once. Remember you are a guest.
- Do not call for backup. Do not ambush. If someone says something that stumps you, do more reading, or ask for clarification, until you can respond.
- Do not label people, even when the label fits.
- Do not try to get them to admit when they have changed their position. People have egos and don’t like them being bruised.
- Do not feel obliged to respond to every point they make; keep the discussion focussed on the most important points of disagreement.
- Do not insist on having the last word in a debate. The last word does not make you the winner of the argument.
What does it mean to ‘win’ an internet debate?
- They ask you questions; they ask you for links to where they can find more information.
- You get them to consider a flaw in their worldview that they were not previously aware of.
Also:
- Decide whether a debate is worth having. Is the person you are talking to likely to change their mind? Is this your aim, or are you trying to appeal to onlookers?
- Do not engage in a debate on a subject you do not have a strong understanding of. Spend time educating yourself before trying to educate others.
- Do not have high expectations. People do not usually change their minds quickly. People rarely acknowledge when they have learned something from you or you have changed their mind on something. Do not expect to be thanked.
Here is an example of a discussion I am currently having with some Zeitgeisters:
http://www.tzmforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=290
Please DO NOT post in that thread (or anywhere else on the forum, really). That would undermine me, and would come across as an ambush. I have posted this as an example of a debate that I think has gone fairly well, so far. I do not think the posters there have really thought about the problem of economic calculation before, or understood what exactly the problem is.
Bring up god.
Graham, those look like excellent rules to keep to. I think many people imagine that following such guidelines would be so restrictive that they would never make much progress and would be eaten alive by the opposing hoard. In my experience the opposite happens, especially when you can frame disagreements as the miscommunications that they frequently are.
Hahahaha
I think an important question to ask here is ‘what is winning?’
If it’s the other person formally conceding and accepting your superior rhetorical skills, grammar and erudition then no, winning isn’t possible.
Graham on that Zeitgeist thread project cybersyn was brought up and you replied
“Thank you. I had not heard of this before. Do you consider this to be a kind of “proto-RBE” system? Are there any essential differences between Cybersyn and the RBE model?”
I don’t know if you were humouring him or not but the idea that cybersyn was ever anything close to a Venus project style RBE is a myth. Propagated by Joanne Meadows Fresco’s right hand woman. Like the RBE idea Cybersyn was wishful thinking. They should not get away with suggesting to people that it was ever anything more then a shiny façade.
Greg Borenstein explains in this video
@Groucho
lol, would you like to play Global Thermonuclear War?
I think we should always remember that our target audience is mainly those bystanders to the debate who are on the fence. Highly unlikely you’ll convince the person you’re debating with, but you might just convince a bystander. So I also favor being respectful of everyone, if only because it makes people more likely to listen to you.
I would say those people have set their expectations too high. I don’t go to other forums expecting to be able to change people’s minds, but to sow seeds of doubt and spark some interest in our philosophy. “I can only show you the door - you’re the one who has to walk through it”.
I genuinely hadn’t heard of Cybersyn before, so I’ve learned something from the discussion, at least. I was actually pretty surprised to see it posted, because usually Zeitgeisters try to make clear that the RBE is absolutely definitely certainly not socialism or communism, and that it is an entirely new, never-before-thought-of, totally original idea. Hence my questions.
Who?
Interesting. I think maybe he meant that RBE is a bit like what Cybersyn was supposed to be, or was purported to be. I don’t mind them making the comparison. They do seem to be pretty similar, and both schemes fail for the same reason.
Poster pluckedkiwi from Ars Technica’s SoapBox forum seems to be doing some fine work. Is (s)he also posting here? If so, please PM me.
^ bump
He looks to be employing the “But it’s voluntary!” defense (in addition to accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being a “nutjob conspiracy wacko”. his is why people think that libertarians hate poor people or worship corporate power. He sounds like he needs to read more. He reminds me of Lee Doren
Why do so many Libertarians neglect the Carsonian thesis? That is, detailing the difference between free markets and historically existent capitalism. I find it much more convincing than the appeal to individual morality extrapolated to the economy and really just a more robust development of Rothbard’s analysis of historical capitalism.