How I debate on modern day debate to counter trolls

Started by SatanLucy

Replies
10
Posts
11
Page
1 / 1

Conversation

#1 β€’β€’β€’

Most debaters on modern day debate are trolls.


they are not interested in debating, but in personal attacks. For example, instead of responding to argument, some will say "He is probably from India".


And some are even worse trolls who pretend to support something and then turn against it in middle of conversation, pretending to be "convinced" (I have seen same person do this multiple times on same topic in few days).



Because modern day debate is overrun by trolls and teenagers, one cannot really debate them in any way which is usually done in serious debates, because they are not interested in debate, but just personal attacks.


And when Ad Hominem becomes a debating standard on some site, one must use different methods to counter it.


the best possible method is Machiavelli delayed response rule.


Simply, you:

One, make your argument

two, they respond with Ad hominem

three, you delay response.


Simply dont respond immediately. Let them wait for you to respond, or let them throw more Ad hominems while you say nothing.


the minimum waiting time to respond is usually 7 seconds after they are fully done responding, but a better way is to wait few minutes before giving another argument.


In fact, the ideal way is to just post argument, and when you see them responding with ad hominem, just dont respond at all, close app, and then open it again after five minutes, and post another argument while completely ignoring their personal attacks.


And doing this repeately exhausts them. Because if you post one argument every 5 minutes, and they respond with bunch of personal attacks each time, you are essentially forcing them to write much more than you do.


Because to each argument, they are forced to respond with 3 or more ad hominem replies.


Machiavelli way is simply, dont argue, make a claim, wait for them to respond, then delay your response for minutes before making another claim.


this forces only two possible outcomes: they either write more personal attacks each time, looking desperate and insane, or they stop with personal attacks.


But never respond with personal attacks to them, but force them to exhaust their personal attacks.

Edit comment

#2 β€’β€’β€’
@SatanLucy

In other words be a punching bag.

Edit post

#3 β€’β€’β€’
@Debby
In other words be a punching bag.


Crush them with a seven second pause, it's almost cruel.

Edit post

#4 β€’β€’β€’
@Sidewalker

Enter, How to beat a punching bag in your AI app.

Edit post

#5 β€’β€’β€’
@SatanLucy

Trolls live under bridges in Scandinavia and cock sure youthful exuberance is what it is.


I was once a cock sure youth, but now I am wise to the ways of the endocrine system.

Edit post

#6 β€’β€’β€’
@Debby
In other words be a punching bag.



Machiavellian grace isnt about being punching bag. Its more about being capable of ignoring those who verbally attack you. Its about lack of reaction, and delayed counter attack. Because the strong arent bothered by weak to immediately react to them.

Edit post

#7 β€’β€’β€’
@SatanLucy

But that is exactly how a punching bag would react.

Edit post

#8 β€’β€’β€’
@Debby

Punching bag gets punched. Machiavelli grace gets punched too, but those punches are used to produce greatness long term.


Machiavelli himself was in prison, and tortured severely in prison over false charges. It didnt break him. He endured. then he wrote a book on power, exposing the strategies, all the pretending and lies his enemies use, and he became one of most famous writers in history, producing true greatness of eternal literature which endures forever while his enemies are all forgotten and what they produced didnt last. He became a legend who exposed true nature of society and its leaders, while his enemies were just another common traitorous worms found everywhere.

Edit post

#9 β€’β€’β€’
@SatanLucy



Like I said, react like a punching bag.

Punching bag gets punched. Machiavelli grace gets punched too, but those punches are used to produce greatness long term.

He was a famous punching bag.


NiccolΓ² Machiavelli (1469–1527) was, in a literal and political sense, a "punching bag" for the tumultuous political landscape of 16th-century Italy. Following the fall of the Florentine Republic, which he served as a diplomat, he was ousted by the Medici family, accused of conspiracy, imprisoned, and subjected to torture

His reputation as a "punching bag" in history and political science stems from several factors:

  1. Political Victimhood: Machiavelli was tortured and banished to his farm estate by the Medici family when they took control of Florence, ruining his career as a civil servant.
  2. The "Machiavellian" Misunderstanding: While his name is synonymous with manipulative, "evil" politics, many scholars argue he was a realist aiming to provide a practical handbook for survival in a treacherous political environment.
  3. A "Punching Bag" for Criticism: Following the publication of The Prince, both Catholic and Protestant authorities blamed him for inspiring tyranny, making him a scapegoat for the violence and political instability of the era.
  4. The Target of Dislike: Even in modern times, "Machiavellian" is used as a term for someone willing to use immoral methods to get what they want, often ignoring the context of his work, which was designed as a strategy for maintaining a stable state, not just for personal gain. 
  5. Reddit +4

Contextual Interpretations:

  1. Patriot: Some views suggest he was a patriot willing to endure humiliation and personal compromise to ensure a strong leader could unify a fractured Italy.
  2. Teacher of Evil: Conversely, his work is sometimes viewed as providing a roadmap for brutal dictatorships, earning him the moniker "teacher of evil".
  3. Satirist/Realist: Some interpretations see The Prince as a satirical work or a warning to the public, rather than a genuine endorsement of immoral behavior.


Edit post

#10 β€’β€’β€’
@Debby

As I said, Machiavelli gathered a lot of experience, and his reasoning method was actually a reasoning method used in modern times. He learned patterns from real examples from history, and real examples from his own life. And the fact that everyone was against him, and he still became legend in history, just shows how much greater he would be if he actually had support of people. He fully exposed his enemies for what they are.

Edit post

#11 β€’β€’β€’
@SatanLucy

The "Machiavelli Paradox"

Some interpretations suggest a "paradox": while Machiavelli wrote a book advising leaders to be deceptive and ruthless, he was, in his own life, an honorable, loyal, and patriotic public servant. This suggests he was analyzing, rather than promoting, immoral behavior.

Edit post