If you’re a political poster on social media, you have had your share of infuriating arguments. Here’s a guide to tell if the person you’re arguing with is worth your time. If the person you’re debating commits these debate sins, they may just be an idiot.
1. Ad Hominem
If the person you’re debating is quick to insult and more likely to levy charges against your person than they are to actually respond to arguments you’re making, you might be debating an idiot.
An ad hominem is any personal attack in lieu of substantive arguments; it doesn’t matter if it’s levied against you or another individual.
The ad hominem attack is the last resort of the factually bankrupt. Don’t waste your time with someone of such tendencies. Every day I have expletives hurled at me over a range of issues. It used to irk me, but now I find it amusing.
2. Apparent Lack of Understanding of Issues at Hand
If the person you’re debating with displays an obvious ignorance of the topics at hand, you might be debating an idiot.
When it comes to policy, economics, or political processes, idiots have a tendency to talk over their heads. They will plunge head-first into a topic they have little understanding of. For example, trying to argue with someone who doesn’t understand scarcity or market functions about wages or the best way to distribute resources is like arguing with pigeons.
If it becomes clear the person you’re debating doesn’t have the prerequisite knowledge needed to engage on the issues you’re discussing, you should consider if it’s really worth your time to continue.
3. Spelling/Grammar
Obviously, everyone makes mistakes — and with spellcheck being less than helpful, it sometimes isn’t even our fault. But if you find yourself engaged in a battle of wits with someone who regularly confuses “our” and “are” or doesn’t understand the difference between “you’re” and “your”, it may be a good idea to evaluate if it’s worth your time.
Someone who can’t be bothered to learn the correct usages of “to”, “too”, and “two”, probably isn’t going to bother to learn the nuances of law and policy.
4. Ignoring or Refusing to Respond to Facts
If the person you’re debating with refuses to acknowledge or respond to valid facts, you might as well be debating a wall. It’s the internet equivalent of plugging one’s ears and shouting “nah-uh!” loudly to block out that which they don’t want to hear.
This person is not interested in debate. They may or may not be an idiot, but either way, they’re certainly not worth your time. Why get yourself worked up yelling at a wall. Just move on.
5. Using self-proclaimed intelligence or credentials in place of an argument
The only time it is acceptable to parade one’s credentials or accomplishments out for people to see is when specifically asked about them or when they are challenged. But if the person you’re debating is quick to remind you that they’re a supposed expert and uses this asserted fact as a substitute for an argument, you may be debating an idiot.
I have found idiots who claim credentials they don’t have (I know, the fact that people lie on the internet is hard to believe), and I have found people who hold idiotic and uninformed opinions who do happen to hold college degrees or positions of authority. Being and idiot and holding idiotic views are not always the same. Either way, if someone thinks their degree substitutes an argument, you’re wasting your time.
6. Appeals to false authorities
If the person you’re debating likes to cite false authorities, you may be debating an idiot. In truth, appealing to any authority can be seen as a debating sin, but there’s a big difference between citing an economist or philosopher on a relevant subject and quoting Sylvester Stallone about anything.
Actors and celebrities are the favorite authorities for the uneducated. Because they know who these people are, their opinions supposedly matter. Why should we care what Matt Damon’s opinions on guns are? Who made Russel Brand an authority on anything — let alone economics and policy?
Sure, we all get excited when someone with celebrity status shares our views — it makes us like that person more. But it isn’t validation of our beliefs. The opinion of a celebrity has no bearing on anything.
7. False Dichotomies
If the person you’re debating insists on framing your views between two extremes or insists on framing the debate as an either-or scenario when the reality is more complex, you may be debating an idiot.
There are many examples I see almost every day on this. You’re either for government regulation in the name of stemming global warming or you are anti-environment. If you advocate for cutting waste in our defense budget you’re anti-military. If you don’t like the candidate from party X, you must be voting for candidate from party Y.
Although, there is a chance you aren’t debating an idiot if you encounter this. You may be debating a demagogue. The difference is the idiot doesn’t understand the flaw in what they’re doing.