[FoRK] Teach your children well....Fork ABCs

[Owen Byrne]

There's the "Denigrating another's obvious effort with a well placed  
expression of puzzlement"  move.
WTF? ;-)
Owen

On Nov 29, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Tom Higgins wrote:

> Found at http://taint.org/2001/06/05/124433a.html
>
> Call em when you see em, think of it as a Forkdeabte Bingo.
>
> " June 5, 2001 at 12:44 pm
>
> Signature FoRK Debate Moves — a list of cut-out-and-keep debating
> tactics for mailing lists, featuring such tried-and-trusted feints and
> lunges as the Old Post Resurrection Embarrassment, The Link Slam (my
> favourite), and the truly beautiful to behold Tom Whore.
>
> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 04:06:49 -0500
> From: Jeff Bone (spam-protected)
> To: (spam-protected)
> Subject: Signature FoRK Debate Moves
>
> (In memory of CobraBoy… Humor Ark Ark?)
>
> So much as I hate to say it, FoRK is pretty analogous to the WWF in
> many ways. As such, it too has its signature moves. In deconstructing
> the recent rambles and pondering the Debate-O-Matic ideas that have
> been tossed about, it occurred to me that it might be worthwhile to
> document some of those signature moves. Here's a rough cut. (Before
> anybody starts yelling, let me acknowledge that I indulge in almost
> all if not every one of these myself on a regular basis. This isn't
> (hypo)criticism, it's reflection.)
>
> The Character Assassination
>
> The Character Assassination is a classic maneuver with a fairly
> self-explanatory name. Rather than attacking the point of argument
> itself, the attacker seeks to undermine the defendant his/herself.
> This is done in a variety of ways, yielding variations that are each
> themselves worthy of study. The general character assassination attack
> can take two modes: direct and indirect. In the direct attack, the
> attacker draws directly from the surrounding debate context in order
> to build material — relevant or not — which is positioned to undermine
> the defendant's credibility, and therefore weaken their position. In
> the indirect attack, the attacker uses context outside of the debate
> itself to executive the move.
>
> The Stereotype Assassination
>
> The Stereotype Assassination is a variation on the Character
> Assassination. In it, the attacker seeks to draw parallels — real or
> otherwise — between the defendant's position and a tendency to
> unthinkingly buy into stereotypes. Because we all "know" that
> stereotypes are over generalizations, narrow-minded, and generally
> "wrong" the attacker is able to undermine the defendant's credibility
> and therefore their position without addressing specific issues at
> all. The stereotype maneuver is ironic in nature; the attacker is
> usually utilizing unfounded generalization from the defendant's actual
> argument in order to paint the defendant as engaging in stereotyped
> thinking.
>
> The Category Assassination
>
> The Category Assassination is in many respects the ironic complement
> of the Stereotype Assassination. In this move, the attacker builds the
> perception in the audience's mind that the defendant belongs to some
> particular category, and then makes the assertion that the category in
> question has some particular stereotyped mindset / behavior / what
> have you; by having such behavior, the attacker asserts, the defendant
> cannot possibly have a position of merit -wrt- the current debate.
>
> The Context Stomp
>
> The Context Stomp is a cheap but effective maneuver. In it, the
> attacker intentionally misrepresents something the defendant asserted,
> taking a particular point out of context and flaying the hell out of
> it. Doing so may or may not detract from the defendant's position, but
> it certainly distracts. The defendant is put on the defensive, and
> must clean up the situation before proceeding to prosecute his or her
> point.
>
> The Level Lunge
>
> The Level Lunge is another distraction maneuver. The attacker seeks to
> gain points by plummeting down the metalevel ladder; first, the
> meta-argument is attacked, and then the meta-meta-argument, and so on.
> This is a good maneuver to engage when the attacker is on the outs,
> losing the fight, as it can force a stalemate. (A successful Level
> Lunge resulting in a stalemate is referred to a Stack Overflow
> Termination.)
>
> The Slight-Of-Hand Strawman
>
> In the Slight-Of-Hand Strawman, the attacker directly engages the
> defendant's arguments, but during the process subtly shifts the point.
> After doing this long enough, the attacker has constructed a weak
> strawman which is quickly knocked down for the kill. The SOHS is
> widely regarded as a cheap maneuver not worthy of FoRK. In past lives
> though not on FoRK, Gojomo has been known to be a skillful master of
> this maneuver.
>
> The Zecious Zero
>
> In the Zecious Zero, the attacker tediously constructs an apparently
> logical framework, states that it is formally correct and any
> disagreement must therefore be merely a definitional / semantic
> matter, and vigorously defends the formal framework. It should be
> noted that in most cases the framework constructed is "zecious" in the
> extreme; while having the appearance of a very detailed formal
> framework, it is usually internally inconsistent. Only the complexity
> of the framework hides the inconsistency. (Kudos to Gordon Mohr for
> coining the term "zecious.")
>
> The Extrapolation Explosion
>
> The Extrapolation Explosion is a combo Context Stomp / SOHS special.
> In it, the attacker puts together multiple iterative context stomps
> and SOHSes in one post, extrapolating from the current debate, until
> the defendant's argument is so grossly distorted that it cannot
> maintain its integrity. This move is extremely hard to defend against;
> in this regard, it resembles the Level Lunge in that attempting to
> counter usually results in Stack Overflow Termination.
>
> The Insinuendo
>
> The Insinuendo is not an attack per se, rather a feint. It is a mild
> and subtle CA move which is not intended to score but rather to
> disorient the defendant and plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of
> the audience. When executed correctly, it can be very effective;
> however, FoRK isn't a particularly subtle place, so we don't even see
> this one attempted very often.
>
> The Jane-You-Ignorant-Slut
>
> The JYIS is an Insinuendo without the subtlety. It is almost entirely
> ineffective in either disorienting the defendant or in seeding doubt
> among the audience, but it does have one beneficial effect. When
> executed well, it demonstrates the attacker's superb sense of humor
> and comedic timing, and therefore scores points *for* the attacker
> without actually taking them away from the defendant. FoRK tends to
> see JYIS at the tail end of threads collapsing into rhetorical holes,
> which is unfortunate; it's a beautiful maneuver, but worthless in such
> a situation.
>
> The Mortar Lob
>
> The Mortar Lob is the Hail Mary of our moves. It involves drastically
> changing the topic mid-thread, making an extreme shift towards some
> position entirely unrelated, and firing away. It is usually a last
> ditch effort employed as a defensive conversion maneuver when one is
> on the way out. The Mortar Lob almost never works, but if you don't
> try it, you're a pussy.
>
> The Loaded Word Gambit
>
> In this move, the attacker loads the argument up with words which
> carry significant emotional baggage and implication. By appealing to
> the knee-jerk interpretations of these words, the attacker seeks to
> gain the advantage. The Loaded Word Gambit is almost never effective,
> and often results in the Semantic-Spiral-Of-Death.
>
> The Semantic Death Spiral
>
> This maneuver is often used in either of two contexts. It is often
> engaged when both positions are rhetorically strong, or when the
> rhetorical frameworks employed cannot be meshed at all. It's an
> endless recursion of definitional arguments, with each combatant
> seeking to co-opt the other's argument by defining away any
> disagreement. The Faith Thread is a good recent example of a tag team
> SDS bout.
>
> The Curse and Recurse
>
> The Curse and Recurse is a disorienting attack in which the attacker
> gets all wiggy to throw the defendant off, pops the stack, then
> circles back around to resume the same attack sequence that didn't
> work the first time around. This can go on forever unless it falls
> into some terminal sequence.
>
> The Old Post Resurrection Embarrassment
>
> In this attack, the attacker diligently — perhaps through a
> significant act of e-mail archaeology — seeks to undermine the
> opponent's position. This attack can take a variety of forms. It is
> often used to illustrate some (potentially irrelevant) inconsistency
> between the defendant's current position and some position adopted in
> a previous bout. It can also be used, as by Greg Bolcer recently, to
> illustrate the fundamental incorrectness of the defendant's position
> by referring to a previous post made by somebody else. When deployed
> as the latter, this move is also known as The FoRK Historical
> Stupidity Attack. There is no effective defense against the Old Post
> Resurrection Nightmare, though the defendant may sometimes attempt the
> Teflon Don in retaliation.
>
> The Drunken Master
>
> The Drunken Master is a move intended to completely imbalance the
> attacker. It is often employed after a brief hiatus during which the
> attacker engages in some late night substance abuse; the attacker then
> blathers at top volume until the defendant is totally unbalanced, at
> which point the attacker attempts to close in for the kill. (And
> usually falls on his/her face in the process.) The Drunken Master
> always feels good at the time, but is usually regretted the next day.
>
> The Pedantic Nightmare
>
> The Pedantic Nightmare is the complement of the Semantic Death Spiral.
> In it, the argument is focused on its formal structure, without regard
> to semantics. The attacker seeks to use endlessly tedious formal
> reasoning in order to illustrate the inconsistency of the defendant.
> It is usually ineffective both through the attacker's failure to
> prosecute it properly and the defendant's unwillingness to let it
> happen.
>
> The Dennis Miller
>
> Also known as The Reference Roundhouse. In this move, the attacker
> attempts to co-opt credibility by dazzling the defendant and the
> audience with a barrage of not particularly relevant references,
> preferably obscure, usually nonauthoritative. The theory is that if
> the attacker has such a vast array of trivial knowledge at their
> disposal, surely they are therefore correct in their assertions. (I
> know, it doesn't make sense, but that doesn't stop us from trying it
> from time to time.) The Dennis Miller is often coupled with the Teflon
> Don when things go awry, which is pretty funny when you think about
> it. The Dennis Miller can be effective in the right context, and is
> almost always fun to watch.
>
> The Vocab Blitz
>
> The Vocab Blitz is another credibility co-opt maneuver intended to add
> punch to a particular attack. The Vocab Blitz involves maximizing the
> syllabic length of any and every possible word in a particular parry
> in order to demonstrate the attacker's intelligence. Clearly, such a
> genius much be infallible. (Or so the thinking goes.) The Vocab Blitz
> is cheap and meaningless.
>
> The Link Slam
>
> The Link Slam is an attempt to shore up an attack by over reference.
> The theory is that clearly the attacker has researched the issue much
> more thoroughly than the defendant. Whether this is believed or not,
> this can be effective; it often sends the defendant on a fact chase,
> therefore distracting them enough for the attacker to make a finishing
> move.
>
> The Psuedofact Slam
>
> The Psuedofact Slam is like the Link Slam, but without the links. In
> this move, the attacker shores up their position with a seemingly
> limitless array of very specific sounding and potentially believable
> supporting "facts." These "facts" need not and often do not have any
> factual basis whatsoever; the attacker need not even do a Google
> beforehand, as no attribution or support is provided. Only a diligent
> defender can effectively parry a Psuedofact Slam.
>
> The SYGIGH
>
> Also known as The Cartman, the Screw-You-Guys-Im-Going-Home is a
> defensive measure of last resort, effectively ending the bout without
> a victory condition. Pretty clear from its name what it consists of,
> the SYGIGH was most recently effectively employed by our own Strata in
> a debate with Yours Truly. The SYGIGH almost always results in a
> rematch, once the party who employs it decides a rematch is needed.
>
> The False-Falling-On-Ones-Sword
>
> This maneuver consists of the attacker feigning a conciliatory or self
> deprecating position, in an attempt to draw the attacker in and put
> them off guard. It is usually immediately followed up by some combo of
> the Slams, or even — particularly effectively — an Old Post
> Resurrection Embarrassment.
>
> The Overpost Armageddon
>
> The Overpost Armageddon is a massive blitz of sequential follow-up
> e-mails, each of which typically tears a single previous post apart
> line by line, employing various attacks. The goal of the Overpost
> Armageddon is to completely overwhelm the defendant, making it
> literally impossible for them to counter each attack. The author is
> periodically the reigning master of this particular maneuver, though
> in his case this is believed to be the result of some
> neuropsychological disorder such as TLE- or OCD-induced hypergraphia.
> The problem with this maneuver is that it usually leaves everyone
> involved — including the attacker — exhausted for days.
>
> The Teflon Don
>
> This is a particularly obnoxious defensive maneuver in which one
> eliminates all possibility of further damage simply by claiming that
> the positions taken, rhetorical style employed, formal structure,
> definitional correctness, or behavior in any way represent one's own
> character, beliefs, etc. The Teflon Don is a terminal move, which
> cannot be countered, though it should be recognized for what it is:
> the king of all cop-outs.
>
> The Consistency Spasm
>
> The Consistency Spasm is a disorienting attack in which the attacker
> alternates between two obviously inconsistent positions in order to
> find maximum advantage from which to press further attacks. It's not a
> pretty sight. Only the most steadfast defendant will hang in there
> instead of simply leaving the ring in disgust.
>
> The Circular Thrash
>
> The Circular Thrash employs single level circular "logic" in order to
> support the attacker's position. It's impossible to counter if
> undetected, but is a risky proposition: upon discovering a Circular
> Thrash, the defendant needs to merely cry out "Shenanigans!" in order
> to call the match and declare victory. If this is done, the attacker
> who attempted the Circular Thrash is usually surprised to find
> themselves standing alone in the center of the ring, calling out "Hey!
> I wasn't done yet!"
>
> The Running-To-The-Edges
>
> The Running-To-The-Edges is a particularly sophisticated attack
> derived from both the Extrapolation Explosion and the Level Lunge. In
> it, the attacker immediately level jumps not with respect to the
> meta-argument level but rather to the maturity-of-argument level. In
> doing so, the attacker takes the defendant's nascent and ill-defined
> condition and fires a barrage of edge cases at it which appear to
> contradict it. The conceit is that this invalidates the defendant's
> admittedly general argument, by implying that the edge cases cannot be
> reconciled with the defendant's position. Russell recently introduced
> this maneuver to FoRK, where it has enjoyed immediate popularity.
>
> The TrapperKeeper
>
> Named for the South Park terminator spoof episode, The TrapperKeeper
> is the most beautiful, elegant, and sought after of moves. In it, the
> attacker baits the defendant with arguments or assertions that the
> defendant should conditionally agree with. If the bait is successful,
> if the defendant "touches" the attacker's TrapperKeeper, sharp spikes
> shoot out to impale the defendant. Unfortunately, the TrapperKeeper
> has to this author's knowledge never been effectively executed on
> FoRK.
>
> The Tom Whore
>
> The only eponymous move in our repertoire, The Tom Whore is a joy to
> behold when executed properly. In it, the attacker becomes
> simultaneously so artfully obscure / obtuse that no retaliation is
> possible. The immediate effect is that the defendant is left looking
> rather dazed while picking the Speedo wedgie out of their ass crack.
>
> Whew. Anyone have any additions or edits?
>
> Your faithful servant,
>
> Lucifr "
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork