It's almost like there is a handbook out there somewhere on "how to win an argument on the internet" where people are using manipulative tricks to try to shut down debate and appear as the "victor".
Schopenhauer wrote a good one, his 38 Stratagems from The Art of Controversy, all of them still very relevant. e.g. I see #32 all the time:
If you are confronted with an assertion, there is a short way of getting rid of it, or, at any rate, of throwing suspicion on it, by putting it into some odious category; even though the connection is only apparent, or else of a loose character. You can say, for instance, "That is Manichaeism," or "It is Arianism," or "Pelagianism," or "Idealism," or "Spinozism," or "Pantheism," or "Brownianism," or "Naturalism," or "Atheism," or "Rationalism," "Spiritualism," "Mysticism," and so on. In making an objection of this kind, you take it for granted (1) that the assertion in question is identical with, or is at least contained in, the category cited—that is to say, you cry out, "Oh, I have heard that before"; and (2) that the system referred to has been entirely refuted, and does not contain a word of truth.
Oh fantastic- thanks for these. I see # 6 a lot too, especially generalizing what somebody says (eg: universal health care) into a much larger category (eg: universal socialism) that includes a lot of negative components (eg: deadbeats, corrupt governments, unremovable presidents/generals).
