Mocking in debates

[Kapalika]

"Sky daddy", "Imaginary Friends" ect

I feel like if someone has used insults like this in a discussion, they have basically told you they have no interest in a real dialog, and lost any debate. While an insult can be useful to make a point more overt more often than not insults like this simply come from a lack of any substantive arguments.

I think this also extends to other insults like calling some political stances "communist" when it's nothing like it at all, or using the word "socialist" in a derogatory way.

Similarly sometimes conservative positions are called "fascist" when it's a bit of a stretch, or someone is called a "terrorist" to discredit them.

All these insults don't really add anything of substance, so why even use them in the first place?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

"Sky daddy", "Imaginary Friends" ect

I feel like if someone has used insults like this in a discussion, they have basically told you they have no interest in a real dialog, and lost any debate. While an insult can be useful to make a point more overt more often than not insults like this simply come from a lack of any substantive arguments.

I think this also extends to other insults like calling some political stances "communist" when it's nothing like it at all, or using the word "socialist" in a derogatory way.

Similarly sometimes conservative positions are called "fascist" when it's a bit of a stretch, or someone is called a "terrorist" to discredit them.

All these insults don't really add anything of substance, so why even use them in the first place?

It's usually lack of intelligence that causes people to resort to ad hominems in their arguments. When they are incapable of using logic and sound reasoning, they just start the insults.

 

[Earthling]

Because they are very effective to communicate a general consensus and therefore justify one's position of disbelief or contention without having to rely on facts, evidence, research, etc.

Pretty obvious, isn't it?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"Sky daddy", "Imaginary Friends" ect

I feel like if someone has used insults like this in a discussion, they have basically told you they have no interest in a real dialog, and lost any debate. While an insult can be useful to make a point more overt more often than not insults like this simply come from a lack of any substantive arguments.

I think this also extends to other insults like calling some political stances "communist" when it's nothing like it at all, or using the word "socialist" in a derogatory way.

Similarly sometimes conservative positions are called "fascist" when it's a bit of a stretch, or someone is called a "terrorist" to discredit them.

All these insults don't really add anything of substance, so why even use them in the first place?

We are all of the human race. No man should exault himself above another.

The greatest scientist, still need the basics of life for survival, to which many others spend their lives providing.

We all play our part and all need to be appreciated, we need to find the good in all people.

Regards Tony

 

[icehorse]

I feel like if someone has used insults like this in a discussion, they have basically told you they have no interest in a real dialog

bingo

 

[Quintessence]

"Sky daddy", "Imaginary Friends" ect

I feel like if someone has used insults like this in a discussion, they have basically told you they have no interest in a real dialog, and lost any debate.

As a heads up, we can (and have) infracted people for using this language. It's not okay with the rules in most (but not all) contexts.

 

[BubbaGumps]

Very few people are interested in true dialogue and want to enter into a discussion to try to one-up the perceived opposition. Some are subtle about it. Other's not so much.

 

[Native]

@ - Kapalika - Hubert Farnsworth - Earthling - Tony Bristow-Stagg - icehorse - Quintessence - BubbaGumps -

It´s not very often one agrees with 7 debaters in the very same topic - Oh, that´ll be 8 with myself

 

[syo]

All these insults don't really add anything of substance, so why even use them in the first place?

I laugh at insults. They are funny.

 

[xir]

I think it depends on the context, really.

From my perspective as an ex-atheist, I'd say that most of the instances where I've seen this is when people use whatever religious text to support their ideological or political belief, rather than take responsibility for their own stance. Which makes sense, it's very natural for people who don't believe in your religion to be completely unswayed by your religious texts. When you start citing religious texts to support your position, it feels to them as if you're suggesting that deciding what is right or wrong should be done on the basis of the Lord of the Rings!
At the same time, as a religious person, it makes sense to base your beliefs on your religion, of course. Lots of religious people use religious texts to avoid taking responsibility for their own opinions (since most religious texts can be interpreted in multiple ways), and that makes it very frustrating (and pointless) to discuss with them. At times like that, it makes sense why people ask you to stop talking about your "Imaginary Friends" etc.

I'd say that as soon as a debate boils down to "I believe in Book X, which says Y" vs "I don't believe in Book X, so I see no reason to believe Y", it's pointless to continue the debate any further.

If you're discussing e.g. tax policy and citing academic sources, and your opponent discards your opinion and calls you names because you're wearing a religious symbol such as a cross, then they're messed up!
If you're citing a religious text on the topic of tax policy, you must recognize that people outside your religion will feel like you're asking them to make sacrifices based on what Gimli, son of Glóin, said in The Two Towers. From my perspective, in this case you're the one that messed up.