Renowned Prigley Uni token cameo shitlecturer Rick Aston Judas Khomeini-Butcher has recently provided a suitably vicious list of rules, for debating SJWs, neocons, idiotic Marxist intellectuals and religious fanatics. But surprisingly enough, some are not so impressed.
1. Any debate that can be settled with a dictionary definition isn’t worth debating about in the first place. Nor is anyone who weaponises dictionary definitions remotely deserving of your time; which is a gift, and not some kind of entitlement to be allocated to them, as of some kind of divine right.
2. Whether you are emotionally dispassionate or not, and whether you are dispassionate in your communication or not, there is not the slightest excuse, ever, ever, ever, for not being dispassionate in your reasoning.
3. Nobody has the right to an opinion! Either you can give reasons for why you believe what you believe, or you don’t.
4. Not all views or perspectives are created equal. Just as you can’t demand others respect your imaginary ‘right to an opinion,’ so also should you beware of letting other exercise such a fictive and pretended right.
5. You are either on the side of mere semantics, or on the side of power. There is no middle ground, and no third option.
6. Those who speak disparagingly of ‘mere semantics’ always, always, always have interests to protect. An inveterate fear of quibbling is morally indistinguishable from quibbling.
7. 99 times out of a hundred, the identity of your interlocutor is worse than irrelevant. Only the most shallow, mediocre and inferior of debaters constantly harp on the perceived origin sin of their opponents.
8. Not everyone deserves your time. Focus your energy and your intellect on your moral and intellectual equals and superiors; not on your inferiors.
9. If you are, however, debating an inferior person who constantly strawmans, be aware that keeping the moral high ground, and not rolling around in the muck with them, sets a very powerful example to any disinterested or sceptical third party.
10. Do not be naive. Many people, unlike you, are not interested in rational debates. Ideas are mere passive surrogates for their interests; they do not care how they win, but only that they win. You may care about being right, but many there are who care only about being on the right side.
11. Beware of those who do not claim to be right, but merely offer an alternatively perspective (or so they say). These people are driven by envy and inferiority, and not by reason. Anyone who lacks the backbone to say ‘I believe I am right, and this is why’ is a complete waste of your time, and everyone else’s into the bargain!
12. Pointing out fallacies is legitimate, but be on your guard against those who do not understand how fallacies work; or indeed, who wilfully miscomprehend the fundamental basics of informal logic. Many cry fallacy as the little boy cried wolf. Do your part to ensure they themselves are likewise devoured by their folly, as the foolish shepherd boy!
13. Those who are opposed to generalisation on principle are largely incapable of rational thought, and should be left to their own devices. The ability to generalise is a sovereign moral prerogative, and those who oppose it are the enemies of civilisation.
SJWs tears aside, this manifesto of rational, objective debate has its more serious critics too.
Professor Smiggles justly observes:
Objective, rational, dispassionate debate is all well and good. However, let us not forget the words of Friedrich Nietzsche.
The man who fights monsters should take good care not to become one himself. For the longer you stare into the abyss, the longer the abyss has its chance to fix its gaze upon YOU!
I asked an SJW whether he agreed with Professor Smiggles.
What’s wrong with monsters? Diversity of cannibalism is our greatest strength!
…
Oh dear.
I think we may just have to leave it there…