Internet Debates: Cheap Tactics People Vomit

Get This Shirt at my Store

Internet debates are like a form of crack that suck you into a world of dumbfuckery to where you neglect major life duties like a shower or sleep because "someone on the internet is wrong." They are so addicting, some people have to create drama just for the high of a debate, and others, they flock to it like drunks to a place that serves breakfast. I'm the latter. If I see any status of my friends on facebook that shows an ounce of drama and debate, I'm there just to read the asshattery and state my opinion, with popcorn (sometimes, it's a great spectator sport).

In the heat of a great internet debate, you have different types of debaters and cheap tactics people use. You are probably one of these people, at some point. I'm sorry if I offend you. Hahahahahahahaha, no I'm not. I tried to type it with a straight face though. I really did.

You should totally share this when you see friends  frienemies who fall under these categories, you know, for passive aggressiveness, especially if you are on Facebook Vaguebook.

1. The Researcher

I like these people. They are my favorite kinds of people on the internet. They are the ones who post the snopes link in the comments showing your story is bull shit. You can't debate with them without them showing links to prove their argument, usually packed with facts, statistics, and truth. They are awesome for the most part.

They can POTENTIALLY have two downfalls that turn their awesome quickly into asshattery. For many of them, sometimes your argument is invalid because you didn't supply a link, or you didn't supply a "credible" link. It's really hilarious when these people get into such a sheeple mindframe that they think their link from a biased organization designed to promote their argument is more credible than wikipedia. In fact, don't ever dare to give them a wikipedia link because, "haha, anyone can write that," as if the rest of the internet was written by God himself. They don't even care if their sources are cited in the bibliography because they are superior to you intellectually for supplying the cited sources as opposed to the wiki link that took them to that place in the first place.

The second downfall? As if things can't get any worse. When their link supports your argument more than it does theirs, and they are just too stupid to realize it. You can quote their link all you want, but you are talking to a brick wall. For example: You are anti-gun control. He is pro-gun control. He shares a link that states in the 3rd paragraph that studies show gun control doesn't curb gun related crimes. He posted that link to support gun control because it's from a liberal website, and he probably didn't read it. You mention the third paragraph, and he ignores it completely stating the link supports gun control with studies and facts. Where's your studies and facts? Oh you don't have any. Well that one you provided doesn't count because I don't like the source. The other one I didn't feel like reading, and my link doesn't count because I provided it and not you.

2. The wolf pack

You see this one more in female groups, more specifically, mom groups. But these are people who act like cyber-bullies, usually unaware they are being bullies. They operate in packs. They are the ones who post statuses like, "Hey, did you read that mean comment someone left me? Here's the link." The people who usually argue on their behalf are only arguing on their behalf, nevermind the topic, it's about loyalty. For the most part, this is a great way to combat trolls.

Image from one of my most favorite people on the web:Hyperbole and a Half

For example, someone I know wrote a blog about the difficult decision to give away her dog. It just wasn't really compatible with her children. He was too aggressive, and there were some other issues. As much as she loved the dog, she had to choose between the dog and her kids, and the dog had to go. She got quite a few comments from dog loving freaks who shamed her for not treating her dog like it was a kid. These people were fanatics, with absurd arguments that made you believe they secretly rape their pets. Of course, my friend posted about it, and before you knew it, 50 of us were there saying things to the commenters (not the blogger) like, "You are an asshat twatwaffle" and my input, "Your dog would be delicious in Korea." It promoted my friend's blog, like she had more readers than usual for that post in particular. But more importantly, it made her feel better about making such a difficult decision because she was surrounded by a mob of people who supported her decision and empathized with her feelings.

But the wolf pack can go seriously wrong when they use it to bully an innocent. Imagine a scenario where a woman says, "I breastfed my kid for 3 months now, I'd like some advice to ween her to the bottle." And someone is like, "No, you should continue breastfeeding if you care at all for your child." And that someone then, before any comment is made their way, retrieves their friends to come over and support their shaming. So a woman seeking advice is bombarded with comments designed to tear her down emotionally and psychologically, and she is not in a position to be there because her kid needs her boob, now, no time to stand up for yourself on the internet mom.

It can go even worse when a member of the pack stands up for the mom because the mom was in the right. The whole pack shows no mercy when ostracizing a member of their own, and because they are in the same circles online, they usually take their debauchery to other social media methods. They will stalk the excommunicated member for months to come, leaving random nasty comments whenever the opportunity for it arises, manipulating others into picking their side, usually spreading rumors and lies. The person doing the right thing gets treated like shit by people she cared about, cyber-crucified for having an opinion of her own, all to help someone who shows no appreciation for the sacrifice made on their behalf. Then they all post an anti-bullying link, you know, to deceive people (and themselves) into thinking they aren't assholes.

3. The Delusional

The perfect example to this...

"The gay community wants to abolish age of consent laws. Which means children…we would do away with statutory rape laws so that adults would be able to freely prey on little children sexually. That’s the deviance that we’re seeing embraced in our culture today".- Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

What the fuck Michele? Did you make that shit up for attention? Or do you really think that's the case? Because while you are right in your stance, yes nobody wants to see children raped, the issue is that NOBODY wants to see children raped. Like quit putting stupid words in the mouths of people you hate just for the delusion that you win the debate. Of course you feel superior to gay people when you put it like that. Of course, it's that shit that makes you infamous for being a fucktard with an IQ that cannot possibly exceed the qualifying age to join the AARP.

Then what happens is all her little sheeple followers believe that, and before you know it... You will argue with them about gay marriage. And when that day comes, you will say something like, "Equality. Gay people deserve the same rights to love and marriage, and divorce, as you and I." And they will respond with, "I can't believe you are so fucking stupid to allow children to be raped." You are like, "WTF? I wasn't talking about children at all..." 

And then other people join the conversation and because they are either too lazy or too stupid to read exactly what you said, they take the asshole's version of what you said, and they truly believe you just said that you want children to be raped, and there's nothing you can say otherwise to change their mind because the asshole is more qualified on the subject of your feelings than you are. 

In essence, they create their own villain to argue with. The arguments on both sides come from their own mind, and it's just unfortunate for you that they think you are the villain they created and that the mindless zombies spectating believe them. 

I see this the most with any kind of fanatic full of hatred for those against them, whether they are Christians or atheist, conservative or liberal. 

I'm obviously not the only person who noticed. 

4. The Stereotype

This is really another version of the delusional, but they are people who argue with you based on your stereotype. For instance, just say, "I own a gun," and then you get the response, "I bet you believe Obama's trying take your guns. Murica." Or better yet, "The day I listen to a gun toting redneck like yourself is the day I hang myself." What they are arguing? Every meme they read about people who own guns. You don't even have to argue, they will just assume you are arguing their beliefs because you have one. You might believe in gun control, they don't care. You're still a gun-toting idiot. 

I have been in debates where I mention I love God and Jesus Christ, and all the sudden, I am anti-science (not the case, I understand Einstein's theory of relativity and Schrodinger's cat better than the geek mainstream, and I can hang in a discussion about neutrinos and photons), anti-evolution (not true)... everything that anyone could contrive a Christian to be. And it doesn't matter what I say about neutrinos, my argument is invalid just because I'm an idiot Christian who obviously believes the world was actually created in seven 24-hour days, three thousand years ago. I can say, "I agree with science on this one," until my fingers turn purple, and these people think I'm lying because I'm a Christian, and I'm not allowed to be a Christian AND agree with science.

5. The Hypocrite

Everyone is a hypocrite in some fashion, to some extent, but in the realm of the internet debate, it becomes obvious in ways that make you want to vomit. For example. I have a friend who is atheist. He hates it when Christians are forcing their opinions on others. You can't put a Bible verse on the wall at school because that's forcing your religious beliefs on others. You can't quote the Bible as literature in school because duh, it's the Bible, but it's ok to read The Crucible, Of Plymouth Plantation, Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches, and other texts that promote Christianity. That is a level of hypocrisy in of itself, but then let's take it further. 

Then the atheist friend who is so sick of people shoving their religious beliefs on others trolls your conversations about religion. Any time you mention God, Jesus Christ, a Bible Verse, or anything, they comment some belittling comment on how you are an idiot for having faith, and they turn every inspirational text you find on the subject of your faith into a debate on whether or not God is real and that you should just believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In essence, they are shoving their beliefs down your throat, with more determined hatred than Westboro has against gay people. Christians will do it too, but we expect that don't we? 

And it's not just religion. Look at political memes. The guy who is Pro Life is anti-immigration pro-guns. Mixing the two subjects it gets even worse. Anti-Christian liberals believe in everything Jesus Christ ever preached, but they are anti-Jesus. Extreme conservatives believe against everything Jesus Christ ever preached, but they are Pro-Jesus. I say this because if Jesus was on this earth today, based on what He preached according to the Bible, He would be pro-welfare, pro-immigration, pro-life but also pro-women's rights, anti-violence, anti-war, anti-corporate greed, pro-humbling... He'd be a Pro-Life liberal. The liberals hate Him. The conservatives love Him. And aliens are standing by waiting for us to destroy ourselves because that's easier than declaring war on earth. 

When you call them out on it, especially when it involves any form of hatred, they deny it, like it never dawned on them they are exactly like the very people they hate. I'm here to tell you how you feel about others is usually a solid reflection on how you feel about yourself. That's a tough pill to swallow sometimes. 

6. The Last Worder

I fall in this category. I have to have the last word. Part of it is because when you are so kind to respond to me, even in disagreement, I feel that it's only polite to warrant a response back. I do this in friendly emails. Even on the phone, saying goodbye to me takes 10 minutes because I keep responding. My chats look like, "Well I'm going to go to bed.... I should too, good night and sweet dreams... Good night and sweet dreams to you... They will be sweet if I dream about you... Really? Do you dream about me?... ... ... Well goodnight then.... Goodnight to you... Sweet dream... you too...  :) ... :)... :).... :)............." 

But when it comes to debates, I do think I have to have the last word for whatever reason. I have no idea why, but I do. You really are fine if you just don't say anything more stupid, but that rarely happens. Arguing with me, your last word is going to be stupid, and I have to, like a crack addiction, call you out on your stupidity. It's almost like the grammar nazi trying not to type, "You're" to correct someone's "your so stupid." I can't resist.  The reason you are bound to say something stupid in a last word to me in an argument is that if you are arguing with me at all, you probably are stupid. You can disagree with me and not be stupid. That happens a lot. But if you are straight arguing any comment or opinion I may have, you are probably dumber than the flies that circle shit. I can still love you as a friend, even if you can't keep up on an intellectual level because I can appreciate that there is way more to life than being smart, but I can't resist standing up for what I believe, or straight facts, when you challenge my words with stupidity.

There is a fine line between a debate and an argument, and that fine line is usually a vast amount of IQ points.

And my favorite part is where people act like the childish nature of having to have the last word supposedly discredits all the facts you gave them. And the hypocrisy (see number 5), is that it's pretty childish to mock someone's actions as a desperate reach into giving you a false-sense of winning the debate, especially when your logic and facts didn't do it for you. Of course, changing the subject is the easiest way to direct people's attention away from your original points of stupidity.

The girl is totally winning. 

7. The Logic Nazi

These are people who have trained themselves in the art of identifying logical fallacies within other people's arguments. They get super excited when they see one, I'm sure, that they are so intellectual to point it out using words that force anyone to have to Google it. Unfortunately, they lack the self control to avoid the use of them in their arguments, and they usually also lack the humbling ego to admit they do it, even when caught red-handed.

But there is a list of Logical Fallacies that basically say, if you do this, you are illogical. Most people who are obsessed with pointing these out never actually thought it through and instead just took everyone's word for it. Like they probably couldn't do a logic puzzle, but because they can identify a fallacy, they are suddenly logic experts.

Just because someone uses a logical fallacy doesn't mean they are wrong (that's a logical fallacy in of itself). It just means they need to change their approach. 

8. The Statistics Humper

I honestly think there are people who really suck at math that are physically attracted to statistics. They don't understand statistics, but when they see them, they get a boner nevertheless. These are people who have to point out statistics to prove their point. They totally fuck statistics when they misuse them to prove their point, and that's what happens a lot. Even the media sharing findings from a scholarly study often misrepresent the facts and numbers.

Some things to remember about statistics... Correlation does not prove causation. For instance, gun control. Many previous studies on gun control showed a correlation between high gun ownership in an area and higher crime rate. It made a lot of people believe that gun ownership causes violence. New studies are suggesting the opposite. They changed the approach to the study and on a worldwide scale, have discovered that Gun Control Laws are often correlated to a higher violent crime rate. But the other studies? Are they wrong? No. There really is a correlation between high crime rates and high gun ownership, but they are realizing that what happens is that people who live in areas with high crime rates are more apt to go buy a gun for protection, legally. But you will still see people citing studies and statistics about gun ownership and crime rate in order to prove their justification of gun control.

There are also different types of statistics. Some just inform. Like I could ask 100 people, "Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke?" and 45% can answer Pepsi with 55% answering Coke. Let's say I ask the same people "Do you consider yourself overweight?" and 75% of the people drinking Pepsi said Yes and 45% of the people drinking Coke said Yes. Some people are quick to think, "Pepsi makes you fatter than Coke does." No. Those statistics like that only describe. That's it. They do not show any correlation. You have to do some crazy math shit with a formula that looks greek to most of the world to see if there's enough statistical evidence to prove any correlation.

So when you tell me X amount of people died from gun violence last year, that doesn't mean that it proves we need gun control. If you keep posting the stats and referring to it like it's a guide, I'm going to assume statistically that you are dumber than my left tit.

9. The Grammar Royals

These are not your average grammar nazi's. Grammar Nazi's correct grammar for OCD, anal-retentive purposes, many attempting to conserve the English language in a world of little brats graduating high school thinking LOL is a real word. The Grammar Royals take it to a whole new level. They act like the ability to point out your grammatical error (usually only one or two of them, missing the other 50 you made) somehow makes them superior to you and your argument. They believe that they have completely discredited you by discrediting your grammar, and as a result, they won the debate because they discredited your facts and logic.

I want to see this LIVE

Obviously they are right. Like if you wrote a phrase as a sentence, you are ok. If you have a dangling modifier, you're fine. But God Forbid you say, "your not understanding," ok now you are just being a terrorist, and you totes deserve being ass raped with a cactus.


I'm supposed to type a conclusion here, but I really suck at conclusions. I like letting you come up with your own. I suppose I could say something inspirational, promoting peace, like "Don't be a dick."

Keep an eye out for the next part of this. Like subscribe to this blog so you can get advice for arguing with assholes. I'm not an easy person to debate, and I shall share some of my secrets in the near future. I'm also going to share some all natural ways to relieve constipation, so big things coming.