How to debate the Alphabet Soup:
They really don’t have arguments, you can pick them apart easily. This was at the suspended Medium Account.
ESSAY 2: (In a series) Links to other essays in the series are at the end of this essay.
This is the 2nd essay, since being able to effectively argue is critically fight the Alphabet Soup.
[ESSAY IN PROGRESS, I will be updating it from time to time. At the present time I have one important addition which I hope to add in a day or sooner. Last update 7/22/2021] When I say Alphabet Soup I mean the proliferation of letters LGBTQIAPXYZ++ and the repressive establishment which uses primarily the arguments of outrage, character assassination, and accusation to suppress dissent from their ideology.
With some basic application of simple methods learned from debate you can leave them screaming and incoherent and reveal to others that they have no coherent thinking or valid arguments.
The Alphabet Soup’s frequent use of the tactics of accusation and character assassination has resulted in them being dependent on them since by relying on this one tactic, they have not developed general debating skills.
They are often able to shut down dissent by intimidating dissenters with accusations and are able to do this so frequently that if confronted with a situation in which the dissenter doesn’t back down, they are frequently at a loss as to how to debate the issue.
In short they aren’t that good at debating and just have a little bag of tricks which you should be able to deal with easily. You don’t have to be a super debater to defeat them in argument.
I am going to have general purpose instructions and some specific instructions. I will have some case examples also. Often in some Alphabet Soup attack there are multiple tactics working together all at once.
COURAGE:
Their primary tactic is fear, that is intimidation with a volly of accusations and name calling. They will often pile on as a group to send a stream of ugly accusations. Often people will back down and others seeing the response will remain quiet.
Since they often rely on tactics of fear so their ability to debate is limited. You have great chances of winning the debate.
The most important thing to remember is that if you are disagreeing there are likely many others who disagree but are afraid to speak up. You aren’t the only dissident. Others may be simply intimidated, or they may feel that they aren’t very able to debate an issue and feel that speaking up will just result in them being verbally clobbered.
If no one speaks up they win. When people speak up they are shown to be the empty vessels of self-righteous scolds which they are.
At some point you need to decide whether you are going to just give them a free pass and hide out with your disagreements with them or fight back.
I am going to be building up this guide as I get good examples and as I have time to do it.
EASY VICTORIES.
I have found they are not good debaters and really have no experience in dealing with any good debaters and get frustrated fast. They will make fools of themselves fast.
WHAT IS YOUR GOAL?
It depends on whether there is an audience or not. If there is an audience whether it is in some social medium or group of people, you goal is to show how the opposition doesn’t have a coherent argument and is an irrational speaker. As you point out the tactics they are using and also show that you aren’t going to be subject to these tactics their arguments collapse and also they can often get emotionally overwrought underming their credibility.
If it is just an exchange on the Internet, it still is useful in that taking apart their arguments undermines their self-confidence in the ability to bully others and also their self-confidence in their own thinking. It is good practice for you.
Don’t waste any mental energy on trying to change their thinking. Just point out their tactics and the bad faith in which they debate.
Also, know the scope of your goals. If it is just the issues A and B, and they are taling about A,B, C, and D, don’t get drawn into debating issues that you are not really concerned with. You might not agree with C and D, but it isn’t critical to what you want to support.
DON’T JUST REACT, PAUSE AND THINK:
You need to stop and consider what are they actually saying and what is being implied or insinuated. You need to breakdown what their tactics are. Pointing out their tactics usually infuriates them. It takes some work to reflect on the tactics they are using and it is going to be more typing. If you are reactive and can’t hold off replying immediately, you will be likely playing into their hands and lose and empower them.
If you can’t pause and think you might as well stop here in reading this entry.
For the following sections you don’t have to read them in order.
SOME GENERAL DEBATING TACTICS AND TERMINOLOGY:
A lot of these tactics will be done together.
1) Poisoning the well: I put this first since this seems to be their primary tool. This is a classic debating tactic in which if you can’t debate the issues with your opponent you attack the opposition instead. You will see this directly used or indirectly used. It really needs to be understood in all its manifestations.
When you point it out to them that they are using it, it is also pointing out that they are not debating in good faith and it is an unethical practice. This alone often sets them off.
Example Direct: Suppose the person replies, “Sure those funded by the government might say this!” Perhaps you are discussing government support for research and this is the reply you get. I think you can think of your own examples from your debates.
The reply is simply, “This is a debating tactic of poisoning the well. Instead of discussing the specific issues of of government support for research, you are engaging in character assassination.” Perhaps you don’t have any real arguments to my points and so you are resorting to these tactics.
Use the term “character assassination,” because that is what they are doing. They are stating because of your identity you are an invalid speaker.
Another term is “slander.” They are slandering you rather than debating the issues.
If they keeping doing tactics like this, point out that they perhaps “lack cognitive function.” Given that they aren’t able to advance a real argument they probably will suspect it is true.
Example Less Direct: They might instead of being so direct as in the example above, say, “Sure that is what latte drinkers might say!” You are being attacked somewhat less directly, as being a member of a despised class. (By the way, drink all the latte you want, I just had to come up with an example.)
This is a chacter assassination like in the first case.
Example Indirect or Implied: Sometimes the argument is less direct. For example if they replied, “I am astounded to hear such an argument.” Or “I am astounded to hear such an argument in 2021.”
In the later case example there are two character assassinations. One is that your opinion astounds them since it is totally unreasonable, and hence you are not reasonable. Two, that you are retrograde, backward and haven’t kept up with the time.” This is a characterization of both your opinion and yourself without addressing anything you have said.
Now you reply is going to have to mention both tactics and spell it out. It might go as follows:
“Your emotional states are not relevant to the argument at hand. If you have an argument, speak to the issues, instead of discussing your emotional states through which you imply that my argument is invalid because you find it so unreasonable, please speak to the issues at hand. Also, it is poisoning the well, when you just throw out the accusation that my argument is necessarily retrograde when you don’t give reasons why. I tend to suspect that you lack cognitive tools to advance your argument.”
They usually blow up at this point. They will read your reply, they were expecting triumph, and instead find that they are rhetorically sliced up.
Another example is, “I am offended,” but without engaging in the argument. They are asserting what you are saying is offensive and you therefore an offensive person without actually discussing the issues raised. There is also involved here assertion, that it is offensive just because they say so, and there is condescension with self-exhaltation.
In your reply you need to point out that it is poisoning the well, but there are addition elements here. It is self-exhaltation that they think they think that in merely stating something is offensive it is. It is a conceit of the self-righteous.
Also, you are not responsible for their emotional states, and point out that maybe their rhetoric in response to opinions they don’t like is being offended. I am going to review this as a specific item below, I just mention it here as another example.
A lot of times the poisoning of the well can be very subtle and is implied. If you can reveal it and discuss it, the credibility of the person debating you is demolished.
2) Argument by Assertion: Basically this is where the debater makes statements and the statements are true because they said so.
All you have to say is that it is “argument by assertion” and ask if they have any evidence or argument or reasoning to support it. If they don’t understand “argument by assertion” as a phrase, you can say, “It isn’t just true because you say so, do you have reasons?” In many cases they don’t, their rhetoric is just a series of accusations and being outraged. They have no debating ability at all.
Variations on this are, “Everyone thinks …” Well it isn’t true since you don’t. Ask them do they have any evidence for this. Neither is the recitation of a slogan no matter how frequently stated.
Don’t allow any unsupported claims or statements to pass questioned.
Ask them, “How so?” in some cases.
For example they state, “You are transphobic!” They are arguing both by character assassination and assertion here. You ask, “How so?” or “How so? Because you say so?” Don’t reply trying to prove that you are not transphobic. They made the accusation, let them prove their assertion. They will likely respond with more accusations, which you will point out are basically character assassinations and argument by assertion. Suggest perhaps that is all these have in their “intellectual tool box” is character assasinations and assertions.
But besides accusations regarding you, ask them if they have any data to support their other assertions or claims. One response to make it to state it seems that “they are just pulling things out of the air.”
3)Misdirection & Strawpersons: So this is a really critical thing you need to understand since it is used a lot.
A strawperson in an argument is when one person states an argument implying that it is the argument that his opposition is making and then tears it apart. It used to be called a “strawman.” It is an argument that is constructed purposely to be easy to be torn apart and represented as the argument of the opponent.
For example, your opponent goes to great length to defend beekeeping with the implication that you are against bees. The issue is however that bees have set up a hive in your attic and you are having them removed and relocated. It would be easy to defend bees and to demolish any argument against bees, but you aren’t against bees, that is a strawperson your opponent has set up. All you have to do is point it out that it is a strawperson.
Misdirection is where you give forth an argument A, and the response is Anti-B. This is a misdirection since it implies that you were giving forth an argument B. Usually B is also a strawperson as well. It could also be called misrepresenting your argument.
A lot of cases people don’t pick this up and they are tricked into defending argument B in which case they are going to get clobbered in that debate, since usually B is an indefensible argument.
Your argument might be A, I think people sometimes are dilatory in coming out of the closet. The Anti-B argument might be, “You shouldn’t push people out of the closet.” This arguement made in response to your argument implies that you are asserting not A, but B, that is, “People should be pushed out of the closet,” and you said no such thing. You didn’t advocate pushing anyone, you however, were advocating people should consider if they are taking too much time. B is also an indefensible Strawperson.
A lot of times in debates people get fooled into adopting the strawperson and trying to defend it. That is a sure defeat. Likely this happens when you haven’t reflected on what is said.
4) Competitive False opposites: This is used commonly in debates. Whatever is being advocated can’t be attacked directly since it is something a lot of people think is a good thing. This is a particular type of misdirection.
The tactic is to make it competitive with another good thing. For example, you say we should support reforestation after logging. Someone says what about trash in the parks? Well you probably can do both. One doesn’t preclude the other. Also, why is one related to another?
5) Other False Opposites: This is when it isn’t made competitive but too unrelated issues are linked together.
When a Hollywood star mounted a campaign to boycot hotels of a Malaysian sultan some years back because of the plan to implement in his territory a death penalty for Gays, a local Dallas activist condemned the Hollywood star since he hadn’t condemned Israeli policies. These two issues aren’t linked or competitive or related. Nor does the author of this essay want to make a statement about Israel in this essay. The point is two unrelated issues were made opposites to each other.
Transgenders often bring up the issue of violence against transgenders which is totally wrong, but they bring it up in a debate over some specific issue arguing or implying disagreement on a specific issue is leading to violence against transgenders. In this case a false opposite is set up.
In one essay on Medium gay men working out at the gym was held to be related to police violence against African Americans.
6) Stigmatizing terminology: For example the word “hypersexual” is frequently used by asexuals. According to whom is something “hypersexual?” By the use of a series of stigmatizing terms the argument is stigmatized without actually refuting the argument.
7) Feelings: They feel this and they feel that. You aren’t reponsible how they feel about that. They might cry if they see the color orange. Doesn’t mean the color orange is bad. Doesn’t mean you can’t like the color orange. Their feelings aren’t relevant to the truth or falsity of statements. If they feel bad because of a score they got on a math test should we abandoned math tests?
Don’t argue with them what their feelings should or should not be. Their feelings are their feelings and it is surely foolish telling people, in particular advesaries what their feelings are. However, their feelings aren’t an argument in themselves.
7) Avoiding the issues: In a debate are they responding to any points that you have made? A lot of times when they are doing character assassination they aren’t responding to your points.
Just point it out. State, “You are not responding to any points I made,” or “Yu are avoiding the major points in my essay,” followed by “instead you are engaging in character assassination,” or followed by “you are just stating generalities,” or some other similar response.
Just point this out and state that perhaps they don’t have any real arguments and are side-stepping these points. Usually they are doing this in conjunction with character assassination.
8) Avoiding burden of proof: They are obligated to prove their point, not you you to prove them wrong.
Don’t get trapped in trying to prove them wrong or even worse absolutely wrong. They are making an assertion, the burden of proof is on them. You might make a counter argument, but don’t fall into the trap of being responsible to prove them wrong entirely or otherwise.
9) Intimidation: Fear is one of their major tactics. Since a lot of people fear being attacked, many people won’t speak up against some Alphabet Soup assertion.
So when suddenly you get all these people saying terrible things about you it will be intimidating. That is why they do it.
So when this happens, whether it is an attack by one person or many, point out that it is intimidation as well as the tactics involved. If it is more than one person point out that it is a pile on. Challenge them to address the issues.
Remember, there are likely a lot of others who don’t agree with the Alphabet Soup, but are afraid to speak up. When you point out that Alphabet Soup are using tactics of intimidation it breaks down their moral authority. It gives encouragement to others to speak up. You are the person in the front so it is harder for you, but you are opening up the path for others.
Also, the Alphabet Soup will have to consider how these tactics of intimidation impact their ability to argue their case.
10) Repeating tactics:
After you have picked apart their arguments they will often be frustrated and issue forth a volley of more attacks of the same character and type as before.
Breakdown the new arguments as you did previously, but add a new thing to your reply. Point out this is just a repetition of the tactics used in the previous attack. Also, point out that it seems that they don’t have the cognitive ability to argue the case and only have the ability to issue personal attacks. Use the term “cognitive ability,” they will hate that.
ALWAYS TAKE THE TIME TO BREAKDOWN THEIR ARGUMENTS.
There is always the temptation to just give a quick rejoinder and say something, sometimes even in frustration. DON’T DO THIS. They are depending on it. When you reply without breaking down their arguments it legitimizes their original attack.
When, however, your breakdown how their attack is constructed it reveals how stupid they are. It is staring them in the face. Others will be able to see what these attackers are doing. They can learn from your example also so they can refute attacks.
The Alphabet Soup has relied on a set of tactics and really haven’t developed the ability to debate. They just proclaim stuff to each other. So when you take apart their arguments they will be frustrated since they won’t have any abilities to argue back other than another set of arguments of the type that you have already shown to be invalid. They often will explode in rage further revealing their characters.
SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS AND REJOINDERS:
A) Identity based Accusation: “A cis white gay Rodney Honeysuckle said (such and such).” Your reply is, “Is the opinion wrong or the identity wrong.” I made up the name Rodney Honeysuckle and it is entirely fictional. Also, it could be some other identity.
The point is they are poisoning the well. But by responding in this way, you show their tactic clearly, but also that they are denying whole classes of individuals a voice.
They will come back with various arguments, but your argument should be that if Rodney Honeysuckle’s assertion is wrong it should be easy to speak to the issues involved in Rodney’s argument and show how he is wrong. After all Rodney was very vocally denounced it should be easy right! The usual case is that they are not really experienced in debating anything having come to rely on character assassination (demonization) of whole groups.
You can point out the implication of this statement, “So only cis white gays that agree with you have a valid opinion?” could be a reply.
The issues of inclusion, diversity should also be brought up. That is what the rainbow flag is for, to include, not exclude. They are attacking the unity of the Gay community and that should be brought up.
B)) “I am offended”: Variations on this can be, “I can’t believe you are writing this.” Other variations would be assertions that your opinion is beyond acceptable opinion.
This is an indirect poisoning of the well tactic unless they specifically address issues in your writing or opinion or debate the case at hand. If they give a series of reasons and then offer the conclusion that these are the reasons they are offend that is one thing, and your focus should be on the reasons they give. However, even then being offended is their emotional state and you aren’t responsbile.
However, they often will just state that they are offended or your opinion is offensive without discussing the specific issues that you are arguing. Then it is just poisoning the well. They are saying the opinion is offensive without giving reasons why and attacking you as an offensive person for having an offensive opinion.
However, there are additional issues here. There is the vanity that by merely saying they are offended that is actually an argument. They are the arbitrators of opinion because they say so. It is a special type of assertion that involves conceit.
You should use the words “vanity” and “conceit” in your reply. You will find that your oppositions tender feelings don’t bear criticism and they will overreact.
You will find that they have relied on attacks of this sort so long they haven’t really developed arguments and they will be frustrated and will not be able to contain themselves.
C) The Parthian arrow: The Parthians had a Persian Empire and were famous for shooting arrows backwards while retreating on horseback. They would often stage what seemed to be retreats to only inflict great harm on their pursuers.
In terms of social media debates after making a statement they will say that they don’t have time or wish to condescend to debating you any further.
You point out that they had time to make the statement, and you feel that this is just an excuse because they don’t really have an argument. You can also point out that they must be somewhat conceited to do this.
METHODS AND ARGUMENTS TO AVOID.
1) Absurdity: Avoid arguing from the perspective that the assertion is absurd. It is a weak case. Yes, trans activist say things like men have periods, men can be pregnant, etc. and they certainly seem absurd.
However, the author has in school both studied quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. In one class he solved the quantum mechanical equations for the hydrogen atom. Both quantum mechanics and relativity give results that were then or now seem absurd. In quantum mechanics they talk about parts that are spooky. Yet, they always are true, and they are the basis of technologies which our contemporary society use.
So pointing out absurdities merely raises flags that perhaps their arguments are invalid. However, when Einstein proposed the theory of relativity and when quantum mechanics was proposed, the burden was the proponents of these theories to prove them and testing is done even now in the 21st century to see if these theories and their predictions hold true.
It is the burden of trans to have valid arguments. You need to engage their assertion and point out how it isn’t based on reason, facts, or both. Just saying it is absurd doesn’t actually prove anything. Ask them to explain their assertion.
It also doesn’t help anyone else. They probably already know that something is absurd, what they would benefit from is an argument explaining how it is absurd. They might also use your argument to develop their own. A lot of people are not good debaters, you could be supplying others with arguments.
So in terms of rejecting trans arguments, a good argument would be that they privilege certain things over another. “Privilege” is a word academics use to point out bias. That is, trans activists, assert that their interior subjective mental states, ideas, of about their identity are the determining factors and that the objective facts of biology and also their past trajectories in life have no relevance. Also, there is the privileging of a discourse in a certain academic discipline over other philosophical systems or understandings of gender and sexuality.
Probably there are other good arguments also.
Jumping up and down like a flibbergibbit saying something is absurd has very limit value in pushing back on excessive trans claims.
The author is going to track down the original arguments that a transgender man is a man even though he/she/they might be having periods or be pregnant. I think that these arguments need analysis.
2) Alarmism: I think that it is important to point out where some trends are going and what the consequences might be, but that doesn’t develop arguments against the ideologies of the Alphabet Soup that much. Also, if your prediction doesn’t come true, or the consequences don’t develop it undermines your credibility. Use the words “might” and “possibly” if you hazard stating what a consequence might be.
But the biggest part of alarmism is that you aren’t thinking and you aren’t developing your own counter arguments and thoughts. It tends to paint you as emotional and not thinking and likely you aren’t thinking and are emotional. To others it may not seem to be that alarming and they could be alienated from listening to you because often people have experiences resulting in that they don’t like alarmism.
You run a big risk of saying things that seem excessive or foolish and destroying your credibility. If you feel alarmed push away from the keyboard and don’t write anything until you have critically thought through matters.
3) Rudeness: Don’t be vicious in your replies. Watch you language. I am not saying to treat the opponent gently or avoid getting them upset, but think about what you are saying.
Wrong: Your thinking is crazed and you look ugly as hell.
Right: Your arguments aren’t logically coherent. (How they look is irrelevant and a gratuitous insult.)
The first example statement makes you look like an abusive villian. The second example statement is a powerful rejoinder.
4) Prejudice: If you have an unreasoning prejudice it will bleed through into your writing or responses and the opposition will point it out to you and others.
For example, trans people do exist. They are in most every culture where they can exist. There does need to be some social space for them.
If your attitude is that they can go to hell and die, it will show up in how you argue your case. It will bleed through. It will also discredit you.
It also provides a powerful form of support for the opposition. If your argument is an annihilation of them as an alternative to their arguments, you can expect very little support. Most people don’t support the annihilation of others. Also, your opposition will be given the incentive to fight because they won’t want to be annihilated.
If on the other hand if you argue that the social space shouldn’t be unilaterally defined so that it transgress other people’s social spaces you can get support, especially from those who feel that their social space is being transgressed or could possibly be transgressed.
I don’t mind if transmen go to a Gay bar, and if someone is interested in them it is more than just fine, it is a good thing when people find other people. If on the other hand I am not interested in transmen it doesn’t make me a bad person, and I resent assertions that it does.
CASE HISTORIES
CASE A) I got this reply to an essay I published, “Pansexuality and anti-sex and anti-gay narratives.”
The Reply.
Wow, this is originally framed as a critique of a specific slogan that can understandably be read as putting monosexual people down, but then degenerates into outright Panphobia by asserting that we are not even valid as an identity group.
I hope I’m misreading your intent here, but it feels very aggressive and dismissive towards my identity group in the latter half.
I would hope that you can emapthize that sometimes we just can’t fully comprehend other people’s internal experience, but that doesn’t completely invalidate it.
I would use the example of how some straight people simply do not understand how someone could be attracted to someone of the same gender. One person’s internal experience does not invalidate another’s.
Notice the use of the verb, “degenerates.” Also, it is “panphobia,” another stigmatizing claim, which also is an attack on me. Instead of discussing specific items, my character is attacked. Classic poisoning the well.
Notice that no specific items in my essay are addressed in the response.
Notice the use of the word, “Wow,” to open up the response along with the “I hope I’m misreading your intent here.” What the person is arguing is that the argument is so bad that the responder has to doubt if I really meant to say what I said. This is a tactic to avoid discussing the essay, and then move on to the attack. It is being asserted that it is such a bad argument the responder doesn’t have to reply to it. By implication I am a person who is astoundingly bad for making such a bad argument.
As part of the condemnation the responder states, “it feels very agressive and dismissive,” but doesn’t give any reason why. This is argument by assertion and it is again a slander of myself as being a meanie. Given that it is how the responder “feels” it is removed from critical discussion for how could I tell the person how they feel. It is also a character assassination of me being a meanie.
The responder then asserts that I don’t have empathy. Also, there is a misdirection, of “fully comprehend” and “completely invalidate.” These aren’t relevant to the issues raised. There is this statement, “One person’s internal experience does not invalidate another’s.” Do I say that? Is that the issue? What is being done is that the responder is claiming these are the assertions of my essay, this is the Anti-B to imply that I am arguing B.
Then somehow my essay is an attack on gays. Another misdirection. What straight people might or might not think about gays is another question. Though it might be tempting to engage this question, it really is a trap. The essay was about the claims of pansexual identity. What straight people might think about Gays is another issue. It is an attempt to conflat two seperate issues to confused the discussion of the original topic.
You don’t have to have a reply this detailed. You might just point out a few of the primary issues in this response if you are in a rush. But you can see that I do tear apart this response fairly thoroughly.
Also, I have only pointed out here the tactics used and counter replies to the tactics, but it is also very condescending, in particular “Wow” and wondering whether the essay was misread.
Link to Essay 1:
Link to Essay 3:
TOPICS
NEWS