

How to lose an argument online - cwan
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/11/how-to-lose-an-argument-online.html

======
billybob
I understand why "Godwin's law" is so often cited, but really. It's silly to
compare Obama or Bush or whoever to Hitler simply because you don't like them,
but it's not silly to bring up Nazis when someone is advocating eugenics.

It's also not silly to bring up Hitler, Stalin and Mao when somebody claims
that religion is the source of all oppression. They clearly demonstrate that
atheistic worldviews can be radical and dangerous, too.

To simply point and yell "Godwin!" at every mention is more childish that
bringing up these topics when they're not really relevant to the discussion.
Surely there are SOME valid lessons from the worst mass killings in history.

~~~
astine
You still need to make sure that your comparison is apt. More often than not,
comparisons to Nazis and the like are hyperbole, or at least sound like it.

 _It's also not silly to bring up Hitler, Stalin and Mao when somebody claims
that religion is the source of all oppression. They clearly demonstrate that
atheistic worldviews can be radical and dangerous, too._

True, but be careful about how you use this. I've had people claim that
Nazism, Communism, et al, were forms of religion themselves, which is true,
depending on how you use the term.

------
ErrantX
3 and 4 are the worst killers. If an "opponent" resorts to them you know
you've won.

A forum I hang out on has an "almost troll" that has a favorite argument
pastime of thinking up a conspiracy - googling some related idea and posting a
long rant about it.

When he butts into the middle of the discussion with one of these you just
know it's going to spiral down badly - for example whilst discussing the idea
of a back door in W7 (I know, I know :() he sidetracked us onto discussing de-
armament codes in missiles :)

------
rfreytag
There is a 'slippery slope' (#7) when it comes to software - unpaid
maintenance can consume your resources. Charge early and often. Make it a
product - price it at least more than your lifetime maintenance cost. This is
from experience.

------
proemeth
Another classic about how to argue: <http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html>

------
DanielBMarkham
This is good, but I disagree with #8: Going to the edges

Most times it is very useful to determine just what another person is saying.
Language is extremely slippery. I agree that going to the edges can be awful
if done poorly, but if somebody says something like "I'm a utilitarian" I
think it's perfectly honest and respectful to ask something like "Does that
mean you would sacrifice a million people to give humanity an additional ten
years of lifespan?"

Because sometimes "utilitarian" means that and sometimes it doesn't.
Utilitarian is just a label, and labels don't in themselves have a lot of
meaning. Words only have context when related to other words -- this is why
every honest web discussion usually ends with a discussion in terms. Unless
you explore the extremes you really have no idea what the other person is
saying.

Godwin's law is awesome, but just like Occam's Razor, it has it's limits.
Sometimes people are really talking about something that resembles naziism --
like say, modern nazis. So sure, 99% of the time you're whacked for bringing
up nazis, there's also that other time when you're not. And you probably can't
tell the difference! (smile)

------
klahnako
Most items on this list are surprising effective when done by the media.

------
tezza
IMO _Try_ not to mention breasts, it doesn't help your argument:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=909015>

and woefully still digging the hole:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=908944>

\----

Funny that another breast mentioning thread devolved into a a homophobic and
antisemitic troll

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=909389>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=913155>

~~~
jrockway
Uh, what?

~~~
tezza
the article mentions topics not to mention. Like comparisons-to-Hitler.

Mentioning breasts is a similar way to instantly lose an argument, and I
provided some links to arguments that relied mentioned breasts and died.

Did you follow any of the links?

~~~
jrockway
I did. I thought the people that brought up breasts won. I agreed with them,
and they got lots of karma points.

If that's losing, I want to lose.

~~~
tezza
In a HN sense, you're right. I think (and I did say IMO) that they lost the
arguments. One moron started abusing gays and jews (last link). Is that
"winning" by your definition?

~~~
ErrantX
> One moron started abusing gays and jews (last link). Is that "winning" by
> your definition?

That wasn't the one that brought up the breasts though was it? The person that
did made reasonable (if direct) points and obviously people agreed with
them.... that sounds like "winning".

~~~
tezza
What I said: _Funny that another breast mentioning thread devolved into a a
homophobic and antisemitic troll_

I didn't say it was the same person. So there were two morons working in
tamden (kryo and Zarathu).

You conveniently ignore the poor person[1] who replied to the first breasts
comment. She didn't get any upvotes, but the aggressive first post did and the
homophobic anti-semite managed to get an upvote.

tianaco was so offended she wrote _kryo, that was a really nasty, disparaging,
and insensitive thing to write._ You cast this nasty/insensitive as
_reasonable (if direct)_.

\-----------

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=912851> (tianaco)

