Recently, in my arguments in various online communities, I have discovered a new trend that seems to be quite popular. While there are the age old methods of insults, ad hocs, ad hominims, Godwin’s law, and the whole slew of other things people use in insults, this is one far beyond the others. I call it Ad Petty, which, more-or-less, sums up exactly what it is. That is, this brand-spankin’ new technique is simply petty, and it consists of when you are losing you report the other party, and hope that they get banned.

See, this doesn’t work in the real world or in any real form of debate. It is only usable online, as it requires a moderator and the ability to keep people from participating. Thus, by reporting a person, and doing it often, allows you to probably get them banned. This seems to show that they have left the conversation, which, online, means that they have admitted that they lost.

Now, this means that in certain areas I am banned from debating, because I made sure crazy claims as the SPLC claiming that the KKK wants Obama elected (SOURCE HERE), the fact that Phelps has the right to protest funerals (SOURCE HERE), and the fact that Chromosomes are the scientific definition of man/woman (SOURCE HERE). Though these were not where the debates were, these claims were used to show that I am racist, sexist, anti-homosexual, and the like. I clearly am not, but by showing these to a mod, and wording your complaint right, you can get me banned.

Now, because I posted truthful information and sourced it, I am banned from talking about a shit-ton more than that. Until my bans end (two weeks from today), I am unable to comment at all about GM, about the course of Science, or about how Windows 7 is running. Yep, that’s right, because I claimed that Phelps had a 1st amendment right I am not allowed to talk about the failure of GM on certain forums.
That is bullshit, pure and simple

So, this is why I believe that there is a new and emerging method of ‘winning’ online debates. By attacking the other person to moderators – unfailing Gods of the forum – you can actually kick them out of the debate and limit their input. If this is not petty, I do not know what is.

Now, I have no issue with reporting things which are actually a violation of the rule, but if you have to justify it, it is clearly in the gray area and shouldn’t be used. To me, this sort of insensitive and useless drivel is akin to all the other logical fallacies which exist in debates, and it needs to be stopped.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!