In the realm of online debates, it's not uncommon to encounter tactics that reveal more about the debater’s unwillingness to engage in genuine discourse than about the topic at hand. When faced with logical counterpoints or questions that challenge their position, some individuals resort to various deflective strategies. These tactics not only derail productive discussions but also highlight their reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths or address valid criticisms. Understanding these strategies can help participants in debates recognize when the conversation is being sidetracked and refocus on meaningful dialogue.
It's uncanny how frequently people illustrate these predictable tactics during social media discussions! Of which are you guilty?
(Personal Attacks and Aggression)
Switching to Personal Attacks: After failing to establish your position, your abandon the issue altogether and resort to personal attacks. Typically using name-calling such as idiot, loser, pathetic, creep and so on. This shift in tactics reveals an inability to defend your original argument. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of losers.
Avoidance of Debate Content: Once a challenging question, point or issue is raised, you shift focus from the topic at hand to personal attacks or commentary on the individual raising a point, with no attempt to address the actual point. By derailing the discussion, you avoid answering questions or facing issues you find uncomfortable or threatening.
Crying Troll! When faced with persistent inquiries that expose inconsistencies or misinformation, you resort to labeling the questioner as a "troll" or "sealion" or "Mansplaining." This tactic is often used to avoid engaging in thoughtful discourse, deflecting from the real issue at hand.
Displays of Anger and Hostility: When challenged, you resort to passive-aggression, anger, or outright hostility. This defensive behavior often serves as a way to shut down further discussion.
Obsession with Their Opposition: Demonstrating an inability to focus on the actual topic of debate, instead attempting to make their opponent the subject of discussion. You comment on your opponent's attributes, motivations, intelligence, and other personal traits, rather than addressing the issue at hand. This obsession with your opponent distracts from the core debate, as you can't seem to refrain from commenting on the person instead of the topic.
Switching to Using a Nickname: The sudden use of nicknames like "Dear," "Love," "Boomer," "Karen," "Kiddo," "Snowflake." A subtle form of passive-aggressive put-down. This tactic is used to belittle and diminish the other person whilst masking a nasty intention and avoiding engaging in the substance of the argument.
Cries of Racist, Sexist, Communist, Fascist, etc: Inflammatory labels thrown around to discredit others, often to avoid addressing the actual points being debated. This tactic shifts the focus from reasoned discourse to emotional reactions, effectively shutting down the conversation. (Evasion)
Cryptic Responses: Instead of giving a straightforward answer to a direct Yes or No question, you prefer to hide behind rambling responses. You may claim you've already answered, but your refusal to provide a clear response speaks volumes about your shaky premiss.
Dismissal of Points: When faced with questions or observations that reveal the flaws in your arguments, your dismiss these as irrelevant. This refusal to engage with or acknowledge valid points is a clear sign of insecurity in your stance.
Claiming Argument Flaws Without Identifying Them: When you say, "Your argument is full of holes" without specifying any, it suggests you can’t actually identify them. By merely asserting that there are flaws rather than detailing them, you avoid engaging with the argument meaningfully, which reveals a reluctance or inability to address the content directly.
The "You're Trying to Trap Me; Gotcha!" Complaint: When your hypocrisy is on the verge of being exposed, you may accuse the other party of trying to set a trap. This complaint often reveals more about your fear of being exposed than any actual wrongdoing on the part of your opponent.
Answers a Question with a Question: Refuses to answer a direct question but asks one of your own, expecting an answer. This tactic stalls the conversation and creates a double standard: you avoid being held accountable for your own answers while demanding responses from others.
The "Why Aren’t You Answering My Question?" Inverse Deflection Tactic: In social media chats, a common tactic is to ignore a prior question and instead pose a subsequent question to the other person, expecting them to answer your new question while you dodge theirs. Then by asking, "Why aren’t you answering mine?" when you have not answered their initial question, you shift attention away from your own evasion of the original query. This tactic often reveals a reluctance to address the core issue and distracts from the original points of discussion. If someone hasn’t answered your initial question but deflects with this strategy or falsely claims they have—typically responding with, "Oh, but I did answer!" when they have merely given a vague, diversionary, or indirect reply—it’s reasonable to withhold responses to their new questions until they address your original query. Otherwise, they never adequately address the core issue, and they aren’t held accountable for their response to your original question while expecting you to be held accountable to theirs. The best approach is to simply redirect them to the original question and hold off responding to their subsequent queries until they provide a proper answer. I ask first, you answer first. You ask first, I answer first. Then we take it in turns thereafter. Fair?
The "You Have Already Been Told" Lament: When you claim that a question has already been answered and resolved, you often do so to shut down further discussion. This tactic dismisses the possibility of deeper exploration and assumes the issue is settled when, in reality, the answer may have been superficial or incomplete. By asserting that the matter is closed, you avoid engaging with lingering questions or the need for a more thorough examination, stifling meaningful dialogue.
Crying "You Won't Change Your Mind!" Accuses others of being stubborn, inflexible, or obtuse, and unwilling to change their mind, even though you are not open to altering your views. This irony highlights your unwillingness to engage in a genuine exchange of ideas.
Shifting the Burden of Proof: Makes bold claims that lack substantiation, often referencing uncited research or vague "facts." When challenged to provide evidence, you place the onus on your opponent to verify the claim, insisting they "go look it up" or "educate themselves." This tactic shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim, to the one challenging the claim, because you cannot actually back up your claim.
The Meme Barrage: When you've run out of meaningful points or can't defend your position, you resort to replying with memes. Often, this turns into a flood of memes, signaling that you're relying on pre-packaged snark, or someone else's words, to do your debating for you. This tactic resembles a child throwing their pacifier from the safety of their social media crib, hoping to distract from the fact that you've got nothing substantial left to say. (Misrepresentation and Distortion)
Misreading and Misrepresenting: Rather than addressing the argument as presented, you respond to a distorted or exaggerated version of it. By putting words in your opponent’s mouth, your create a lie that’s easier to attack.
Applies Logic Inconsistently: Applies your logic and standards to opposing viewpoints but ignore these same principles when it comes to your position. This inconsistency reveals a double standard, demonstrating a lack of genuine engagement with your own argument.
Twists Data & Facts: Distorts data or facts to mean something entirely different from their actual meaning. This is akin to insisting that the mathematics of a sphere apply perfectly to an egg just because neither has corners. Conversely, claims others are twisting facts when applying them correctly. Such manipulation undermines the validity of their argument and misrepresents the truth.
False Parallels and Mutually Exclusive Claims: Argues that if a person believes or does A, they cannot do B, (or if they do A, they must do B). Claiming mutually exclusivity or connection between unrelated or non-binary topics. They might assert that supporting one team excludes allegiance to another, based on their own inability to support two teams. This stance fails to recognize that people can hold different views or opinions within themselves, depending on context and utility, imposing a false parallel that doesn't reflect the complexity of human thought.
Claims Opponents Are Making a Strawman Argument: Accuses their opponents of creating a strawman argument, by making false parallels or misinterpretations. They argue that the opponent is distorting their position, when in fact, the opponent is addressing the core issue. This tactic deflects from engaging with the actual argument, suggesting that the opponent is misrepresenting their viewpoint; engaging directly with the heart of an issue is often mistaken for constructing a strawman, especially when it challenges the accuser’s position.
Pretending Complexity Justifies Inconsistency and/or Simplicity Is Complex: Claiming that an issues of morality, ethics, and beliefs is too complex for simple answers, using this complexity as a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' to dodge accountability. Yet, this so-called complexity often disappears when it’s convenient, so that your counterargument is black-and-white, simple, and clear-cut, and reduced to 'good and bad' or 'right and wrong.'
Confuses Objective, Subjective, and Intersubjective: States opinions as facts and facts as opinions, blurring the line between objective reality, personal belief, and broad social norms (often goes hand-in-hand with claiming only their interpretation is valid). This confusion leads to debates that lack clarity and direction. (Projection and Psychological Manipulation)
Psychological or Emotional Evaluation: By commenting on your opponent’s psychological or emotional state—labeling them as sad, lonely, immature, etc.—you attempt to undermine the argument by suggesting the person has deeper issues and should seek help, thus shifting the focus away from the debate.
Accusations of Lying About Personal Information: Claims that your opponent is lying about personal information, such as background, experience, or qualifications, despite having limited to no knowledge of the actual person. Even when evidence like a birth certificate can be presented, you insist it's fake.
Incorrectly Telling Their Opponent What They Think and Feel: Telling your opponent what they supposedly think or feel, "really believes" or "secretly wants," attributing unspoken motives, thoughts, beliefs, and opinions that were never expressed. For example, claiming “You think all camels have two humps and you don’t like camels,” when in fact, the truth is the opposite. This tactic misrepresents the opponent’s views and diverts attention from the substance of the debate.
Patronizing Advice: Unsolicited advice, often given in a condescending tone, is a common tactic. Statements like "You need to stop doing A" or "You need to do B" are used in an attempt to assert superiority or authority rather than contribute to the discussion.
Complains Opponents are Trying to Win the Debate: Accuses opponents of merely trying to win the argument, as if that's not a valid objective. Everyone in a debate aims to prove their viewpoint is correct, so criticizing others for doing the same is both ironic and misguided.
Regards Their Morals, Values, and Ethics as the Only Valid Set: Argues that their moral framework is the only correct one, or the superior one, ignoring the fact that morals and ethics vary across cultures and time periods and individuals. Morals are subjective and not binary 'good/bad' 'right/wrong' proportions. While humans broadly agree on treating others well, the interpretation and practical implication of this principle varies widely. (Superiority and Identity Manipulation)
Focusing on Identity Instead of the Argument: When you focus on who someone is and who you are rather than what’s being said, you shift the debate away from the actual issues to the identities of those involved. By fixating on both your identity and the identity of your opposition, you create an excuse to avoid addressing the real arguments. This tactic sidesteps meaningful debate, making the conversation about who people are instead of engaging with the substance of the discussion.
Claims Others Can't Understand Due to Identity Differences: Argues others cannot grasp their perspective because of differences in gender, race, religion or background, even when discussing universally human conditions like love, hate, fear, joy and connection. This tactic dismisses opposing viewpoints and the possibility of common-ground by attributing knowledge and understanding solely to identity, rather than engaging with the shared human experiences that underpin the discussion. They may also add an aura of mystery, implying that only their unique identity or association with the divine or sacred grants them secret knowledge, wisdom, or intuition, further distancing their perspective from broader discussion.
Irrelevant Expertise Claims: Asserts authority on a topic based on outdated or irrelevant experiences, like claiming expertise in a subject based on a brief visit decades ago. They then dismiss recent, objective data that contradicts their viewpoint.
Creates Irrelevant Connections: Bringing up unrelated individuals or past posts to draw a parallel, they attempt to discredit their opponent by association. These connections are often irrelevant to the current discussion but serve to distract and confuse.
The "You People" Lament: When you categorize others with phrases like "you people," you reduce the debate to stereotypes and assumptions. This tactic attempts to pigeonhole the opposition, as if labeling them in broad terms strengthens your argument. By lumping individuals into a group, you avoid engaging with their unique perspectives and instead rely on oversimplifications that diminish the complexity of the discussion
Expects Others to Live by Their Own Rules or Values: Criticize others for not following your rules or values, without acknowledging that others aren't obligated to live by your rules if they don't share those values. Meanwhile, you don't want to be judged by the rules or values of others.
Uses Political Labels to Oversimplify: Reduces complex arguments to broad political labels like "conservative," "liberal," "environmentalist," or "capitalist" to dismiss them. This tactic oversimplifies the debate, avoiding engagement with the actual nuances of the argument by relying on stereotypes rather than substantive discussion.
By examining these tactics, from resorting to personal attacks and cryptic responses to labeling others as trolls or misrepresenting their arguments, we gain insight into the common behaviors that undermine constructive debate.
Recognizing these patterns can empower us to address them more effectively, whether we're engaged in an online debate ourselves or observing others.
Ultimately, fostering a culture of honest, open dialogue requires acknowledging and overcoming these deflective maneuvers, paving the way for more substantive and respectful conversations.
Comentários