is being condescending ever a good tactic?

[DeistPaladin]

At one time, I classified the different types of apologists and how to handle each of them in a debate. I'll find the thread somewhere and link to it.

The type of tactic you describe is used by "The Pompous Apologist".

This type of person knows that the best defense is a good offense. The demeanor they exude is a philosophy professor talking down to and grading their atheist opponents as if they were students. They use a lot of Latin phrases and fancy words to dress up their drivel. They seem to hope that a pompous demeanor will come across as intelligence.

Most of all, their goal is to knock you off balance and goad you into an angry response. Then they, in passive-aggressive style, get to gasp and hold their hand to their chest and say "my, my, what was that all about?"

They will also look for chinks in your armor. Their best defense is a good offense, they realize. So instead of defending their positions, which they're savvy enough to know they can't, they'll look for any weak links in your argument. If they can find any mistakes you've made, however beside the point, however minor they may be, they will harp on them endlessly. If you correct your mistake, they will continue to harp on that, always bringing the subject back to your mistake. No apology, no retraction, no pointing out how beside the point your mistake is will get them off that subject.

The goal is to "poison the well". If you either get angry or you make one mistake, they will use it to discredit you and say you're entire argument must also be faulty.

Here's how you handle them:

• Most of all, don't get angry. Keep a cool head. Ignore their insults and taunts. Remember, these people are sleazy con artists, not college professors.
  
• Where possible, reflect their pompous demeanor and ridicule back at them.
  
• Hold their feet to the fire. The burden of proof is on them. Never let them forget that. Keep bringing the subject back to the burden of proof.
  
• Use as few arguments as possible. Be choosy of the tools in your toolbox. The more points you make, the more chances you might make one mistake for them to harp on.
  
• If you do make a mistake, they will start harping. If they do, offer an apology or correction. When they continue to harp, ask them why they are so obsessed with that already corrected point. Could it be because they can't defend their position? (Bring the subject back to the burden of proof).
  
• Eventually, they will get flustered and they'll start lying. When they lie, that's when you pounce. At that point, they've lost.
  
• They will then start lying about their lie or claim they never said what they wrote. You end the argument dusting off your hands and rest your case, letting the readers judge for themselves. They will never admit it, they will still claim to have won that exchange, but it's all there in black and white for the world to see.
  

[Tonus]

Condescension isn't really a tactic, and it doesn't work on its own. Anyone can pretend to look down on someone else. If you've got the goods, why not condescend? But if you condescend, make you you've got the goods.

And if you think that's shallow, then clearly you're just too limited to understand. *grabs another truffle*

[Mudhammam]

Condescension is not a rational tactic, which therefore makes it only appropriate in an irrational conversation. If an apologist wants to put forth a rational argument, then a rational response is fitting; if he or she would like to make an emotional or subjective case, appealing to exclusive divinities and miracles over and above the reasonable rejection of said objects, and furthermore wishes to imply that such subjective experiences are expected to be taken as coercive arguments to the fair-minded intellect, condescension is initiated on their part and should be returned in kind.

Examples:
1. "I believe such and such forms an inductive justification for my faith but understand and appreciate the value of disagreement" = not condescending and not deserving of condescension.
2. "I believe such and such forms an inductive justification for my faith and agree that anyone who doesn't see it such and such a way is being willfully disobedient to the truth and deserves merciless penal retribution for their errors because that is what my faith demands" = very condescending and deserving every bit of condescension returned.

[Exian]

Condescension works like a charm on me no matter what. I think I can attribute that to my growing social anxiety that seems to be getting stronger with my age. Mostly I'm a calm, laid back person, and that allows me to think critically, but apply any amount of what I perceive to be mean-spirited pressure and I collapse. I have a hard time understanding this about myself. How can I be a level headed person, collecting proof and substantial evidence to form my stance on any given topic, consider any idea that might make my claim wrong and adjust if it is so, but then collapse when somebody is condescending? I'm just not a debater, I guess.

[Mudhammam]

Ironically enough, I think Jesus prescribed the best response to the religious apologist who refuses to engage in rational discussion:

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave... and shake the dust off your feet."

[DeistPaladin]

Here's the thread on "Breeds of Apologists"

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes. Utmost condescension is both appropriate to and a kindness towards those who won't change their minds and won't change the subject.

...which is why you are on my ignore list.

[rexbeccarox]

Yes. Utmost condescension is both appropriate to and a kindness towards those who won't change their minds and won't change the subject.

...which is why you are on my ignore list.

This is coming from the self-described "pompous ass".

[bennyboy]

I think condescension is a kind of appeal to authority-- of one's own academic group or philosophical lineage or whatever.

There's plenty of it here. For example, if someone comes in with an argument we've all heard about a million times, and beat down a million times, there's a bit of an upturned nose from most. That's because we expect every member of this forum to be aware of those arguments, and see anyone who's not as unprepared and unwilling to get educated before heading into the fray.

And isn't that what condescension really is-- that one person sees him/herself as having earned membership into an important group, and the other as unworthy of that membership?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I make change in the coin tendered. If I am treated with courtesy, I am courteous. If I am treated rudely, I am one rude sonofabitch. And don't try to be more condescending than a writer.