From time to time, we will want to argue on the internet.
One way of arguing on the internet is to know what we are talking about. This limits our arguing choices.
A more convenient way is to have a list of standard arguments, that we can apply whatever the subject.
A short list of standard arguments follows. There are many more.
(The ones about Aristotle might be eccentric to myself. But I share them thinking they might be helpful.)
If they just state an opinion.
Tell them that they should back up their opinion with facts.
If they back up their opinion with facts.
Tell them that their facts are just cherry picked.
If their facts are well chosen.
Call them a simpleton who does not understand the complexities of the subject.
If they have very many facts.
Call them a know-it-all who is just interested in trying to demonstrate their own supposed superiority.
If their facts do not have links.
Tell them that their facts should have links to back them up.
If their facts do have links.
Tell them that links to stuff on the internet never proved anything.
If they just describe a problem.
Tell them that they have not provided any solutions, and that you are tired of useless whining.
If they propose solutions to a problem.
Tell them they have not paid any attention to another problem, and that this shows they do not really care.
If they bring up another problem beyond the original one.
Tell them that they are trivializing the importance of the first problem, and that this shows they do not really care.
If their form of argument is emotional.
Tell them that they are being highly illogical.
If they say that argument on the internet should be logical.
Tell them that we are not Spock.
If they refer to fictional stories to support their arguments.
Tell them that fictional stories are not real.
If they make a mistake about a single fact.
Point out the mistake, and tell them that their opinion on anything can never be trusted again.
If they say that someone's opinion on anything can never be trusted again, because that person has made a mistake in fact.
Hunt for something wrong they have said.
If they make a spelling error or grammar mistake.
Tell them that spelling errors and grammar mistakes show a lazy mind, and that you cannot trust the opinion of someone who does not value their readers.
If they object to spelling errors and grammar mistakes.
Tell them they are just trivializing the subject, and remarkably petty.
If they counter a point you have made.
Tell them that their defensiveness on the issue just proves you are right.
If they ignore a point you have made.
Tell them they are ignoring the point because they know you are right.
If their form of argument is logical.
Point out that we are emotional creatures, and that research shows that unemotional content is less persuasive.
If they refer to a distinction of emotion and reason.
Point out that recent views say that emotion and reason are strongly intertwined, and that the distinction is not very real.
If they say what most everyone at the site already believes.
Tell them they are preaching to the choir.
If they go against what most everyone at the site believes.
Join in the piling on of insults against them.
If they use insults.
Say that ad-homs are a logical fallacy.
If they spout stuff about ad-homs.
Point out that the rule against ad-homs comes from Aristotle, who is a dead white male.
If they spout stuff about other logical fallacies.
Tell them that the determination of what are logical fallacies is on the authority of Aristotle, and that on the authority of Aristotle, argument from authority is a logical fallacy.
If they make arguments like the one above.
Call them a Sophist.
If they make arguments like the one above.
Say that it is an ad-hom.
If they make logical-sounding arguments, but do not state their premises.
Tell them that logical argument must have premises.
If they clearly state their premises.
Tell them that depending on the premises chosen, we can prove anything.
If they make a prediction about the future.
Ask them who they have in the third at Santa Anita, or where they got their crystal ball.
If they object to making a prediction about the future.
Point out that making predictions is an essential part of everyday life. That the train scheduled to arrive from New Haven at 8:02 on platform 3, will likely arrive around 8:02, on platform 3. And that the favorite in the third at Santa Anita usually wins.
If they make interpretations of the motivations of others.
Ask them how they got to be such a mind reader.
If they object to mind reading.
Tell them that we are highly social creatures, and that interpreting the motivations of others is an essential part of everyday life.
If any of the above should fail.
Post an obnoxious gif from a meme generator.
If they use one of the above standard arguments.
Point out that it is a standard argument. That it has been used, many times, for and against any position. Since the same argument can be used for or against any position, it doesn’t prove anything.
If they object to the use of a standard argument, for not proving anything.
Tell them that this is a Sophism. And that whatever the problems, no better way of arguing on the internet has ever been found.