Alex’s Laws of Internet Argumentation

So it seems a thread on SFN inspired me to create Alex’s Law of Internet argumentation. I’d like to elaborate a bit on that, and propose a new Law or two:

  • Alex’s First Law
    As soon as an online discussion becomes an argument, the participants will never admit they are wrong, no matter how strong the evidence against them. Winning an argument fairly is impossible.
  • Alex’s Second Law
    Upon reading something that flies in the face of accepted science or reason, the educated layman will immediately make an attack on the semantics of it, as he does not understand enough science or logic to make a more detailed response. Inevitably, the discussion will shift to the meaning of one or two key words rather than focusing on the science or logic.
  • Alex’s Third Law
    It is far easier to attack an argument by quoting one of the Laws of Argumentation than it is to actually construct a logical response.
    First Corollary:
    Using a Law of Argumentation (this includes laws such as Danth’s and Godwin’s) as a substitute for logical argumentation is justification for using Alex’s First Law against you.
    Second Corollary:
    Using Alex’s First Law to win an argument immediately makes you a victim of the First and Third Laws.

A list of the other Laws of Argumentation


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *