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:
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.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
