Augustus
…
@Rival posted a list of tips but these are fake news because she is a paid operative of Putin charged with weakening RF's ability to influence vital global policy discussions and solve humanity's greatest problems. To combat this misinformation, I have compiled a list of more valuable insights to keep RF on it's righteous path and welcome further additions from anyone who isn't actually a Russian troll farm.
Don't bother to read the OP, it's a waste of time. Either it says what you want it to say, in which case you didn't need to read it, or it doesn't say what you want it to say, in which case it is a strawman.
If you are frustrated because your discussion is as satisfying as arguing with a gastropod, write the response that, in your frustration, you want to say - then delete it; it's silly and it's juvenile. Take a breather, now write a response that is more fitting, one which is so darkly contemptuous that it actually absorbs light. Make sure to use caps, exclamation marks and 324 consecutive
emojis.
Be very quiet after you hit reply and you may actually be able to hear your opponent's anguish at being so thoroughly pimp slapped.
Not lost??? If you don't reply, then your opponent will know for certain that they owned you and you automatically become their *****.
Don't be a
, hit back by repeating what you said earlier, although this time with added insults. If you don't do this then your opponent will undoubtedly partake in a victory triumph more glorious than that of Caesar when he returned from conquering the Gauls. You can't give them that satisfaction surely? Where's your self-respect?
Consider that not only is your opponent wrong, but the fact that they disagree with you is likely evidence of mendacity, bias, great stupidity and some form of mental illness.
Calling them out for these is a valuable public service and will earn you 'winner' ratings from people who agreed with you before the thread started. 'Winner' ratings from people who agreed with you before the thread started should be interpreted as incontrovertible evidence that you won the debate with your ferocious intellect.
Read through your own response. Is any of it vague? Good, when your enemy misinterprets it this will be great evidence of their mendacity, bias, great stupidity and some form of mental illness.
Now make your OP so long that you have to break it up into 27 individual posts and you can win every argument by saying 'OMG can't you read or something, I've already answered that.'.
Don't bother with sources as whoever wrote them is obviously not as intelligent as you so they would only reduce your credibility. If your opponent uses sources then just accuse them of 'copy pasting' in lieu of an argument and understand that having to read about something before forming an airtight opinion on an issue is a sign of a feeble mind.
I don't get this. Why would anyone need to convince themselves that they were right? The purpose of RF is to know you are right and convince your opponent that not only are they wrong, they are also less intelligent than a gibbon.
How many times have you used 'I' in your argument? If your opponent still refuses to believe what you have told them repeatedly is objectively true based on your subjective experience then simply point out that this makes them anti-science. This not only proves that you are right, but also proves that, not only is your opponent wrong about this, but they are also wrong about everything else too.
In this case the best thing to do is to insult them egregiously then smugly inform them that you are putting them on ignore.
This is an automatic win because if they reply then they are irrationally shouting into a void which makes them delusional, and if they don't reply then that means they couldn't defeat your logic and cravenly admitted defeat.
Bask in the glow of a conquest as magnificent as that of Alexander the Great, but remember while he wept when he realised there were no lands left to conquer, there will always be another person who is wrong on the internet for you to school.
Don't bother to read the OP, it's a waste of time. Either it says what you want it to say, in which case you didn't need to read it, or it doesn't say what you want it to say, in which case it is a strawman.
If you are frustrated because your discussion is as satisfying as arguing with a gastropod, write the response that, in your frustration, you want to say - then delete it; it's silly and it's juvenile. Take a breather, now write a response that is more fitting, one which is so darkly contemptuous that it actually absorbs light. Make sure to use caps, exclamation marks and 324 consecutive
emojis.Be very quiet after you hit reply and you may actually be able to hear your opponent's anguish at being so thoroughly pimp slapped.
Not lost??? If you don't reply, then your opponent will know for certain that they owned you and you automatically become their *****.
Don't be a
, hit back by repeating what you said earlier, although this time with added insults. If you don't do this then your opponent will undoubtedly partake in a victory triumph more glorious than that of Caesar when he returned from conquering the Gauls. You can't give them that satisfaction surely? Where's your self-respect?Consider that not only is your opponent wrong, but the fact that they disagree with you is likely evidence of mendacity, bias, great stupidity and some form of mental illness.
Calling them out for these is a valuable public service and will earn you 'winner' ratings from people who agreed with you before the thread started. 'Winner' ratings from people who agreed with you before the thread started should be interpreted as incontrovertible evidence that you won the debate with your ferocious intellect.
Read through your own response. Is any of it vague? Good, when your enemy misinterprets it this will be great evidence of their mendacity, bias, great stupidity and some form of mental illness.
Now make your OP so long that you have to break it up into 27 individual posts and you can win every argument by saying 'OMG can't you read or something, I've already answered that.'.
Don't bother with sources as whoever wrote them is obviously not as intelligent as you so they would only reduce your credibility. If your opponent uses sources then just accuse them of 'copy pasting' in lieu of an argument and understand that having to read about something before forming an airtight opinion on an issue is a sign of a feeble mind.
I don't get this. Why would anyone need to convince themselves that they were right? The purpose of RF is to know you are right and convince your opponent that not only are they wrong, they are also less intelligent than a gibbon.
How many times have you used 'I' in your argument? If your opponent still refuses to believe what you have told them repeatedly is objectively true based on your subjective experience then simply point out that this makes them anti-science. This not only proves that you are right, but also proves that, not only is your opponent wrong about this, but they are also wrong about everything else too.
In this case the best thing to do is to insult them egregiously then smugly inform them that you are putting them on ignore.
This is an automatic win because if they reply then they are irrationally shouting into a void which makes them delusional, and if they don't reply then that means they couldn't defeat your logic and cravenly admitted defeat.
Bask in the glow of a conquest as magnificent as that of Alexander the Great, but remember while he wept when he realised there were no lands left to conquer, there will always be another person who is wrong on the internet for you to school.
