Damn you just keep letting me down. A one-trick pony. I thought you were trying out some different techniques but you keep going back to your comfort zone.
Maybe try some whataboutism or a strawman argument? Branch out. Be creative.
Well done. The ad-hominem attack is always a favorite of mine. I like it because it skips any pretense of arguing and attacks the other party directly as a person.
In case you still missed the point, I probably could go back and point out specific instances of you JAQing off in this discussion with others.
I’m not going to do that because, as I’ve said, I am trolling you. I am full of shit. I am not arguing with you in good faith.
To be fair you are doing very well with your “debate obsessive” technique. We should totally keep this “debate” up and see if you can realize your full potential as a troll.
I’d rate that a 2/5. I know you’re capable of better. I can see where you’re going with that ad-hominem attack but you pulled the punch. I believe you correctly intuited that committing to the ad-hominem attack really undermines the credibility of you JAQ persona that you’ve invested a lot in.
If you really want to land that attack you would want to use a sock-puppet. That’s an advanced technique that you’re clearly not ready for.
I suggest you go with a strawman. Take your tendency to assume positions your opponent hasn’t actually stated but take it further. Build it up into a complete parody of their position and then attack that.
I’m so curious, what did you hope to achieve with your little counter-troll routine? What about what I said got so under your skin that you fixated on it?
Great first effort. Create the imaginary position that I am pretending to have examples and don’t actually.
You have to remember when you’re trolling that there is more than one audience. Of course you’re trying to waste the time and frustrate people legitimately engaged in discussion and waste their time. The other and more important goal is to discredit your opponent and make them look ineffectual in the eyes of spectators to the discussion.
On that dimension, your attempted strawman falls flat because nobody here cares about who you trolled and precisely how. If you want your strawman to resonate with the audience you need to steer it back to the UHC / Luigi Mangione discussion that brought everyone here. Try one of your previous tacks where you presume I support the murder of Brian Whatsisname because I’m some sort of communist… or whatever. It really works great because you can take it wherever you please.
I won’t tell you that mockery has no place in a trolling campaign but for it to succeed it needs to be delivered with actual humor. I don’t think that’s one of your strengths.
Go back to the drawing board and see if you can come up with a good ad-hominem. Better yet, take the rest of the evening and put some actual thought and research into it. Let’s see what you can come up with.
Nah, I gave you honesty one time. You turned around and attacked it. My motivations are clear but you’re just going to actually read what I wrote. It’s in there, I promise.
These half-assed attempts at asking honest questions are just clearly more low-effort attempts to make me engage on your level. Come up with something different and impressive or admit you’re a hack and no good at this.
What a shame, I genuinely don’t understand what it was. I’ve been nothing but good faith this whole time, sarcastic sure, but always good faith, unless someone started deliberately trolling me (aka you).
Truly wish you could just communicate what it was that triggered your response.
Damn you just keep letting me down. A one-trick pony. I thought you were trying out some different techniques but you keep going back to your comfort zone.
Maybe try some whataboutism or a strawman argument? Branch out. Be creative.
So you really can’t do it, eh?
I can’t imagine how pathetic you have to be to go around making false accusations and then petulantly refusing to back them up.
Well done. The ad-hominem attack is always a favorite of mine. I like it because it skips any pretense of arguing and attacks the other party directly as a person.
In case you still missed the point, I probably could go back and point out specific instances of you JAQing off in this discussion with others.
I’m not going to do that because, as I’ve said, I am trolling you. I am full of shit. I am not arguing with you in good faith.
To be fair you are doing very well with your “debate obsessive” technique. We should totally keep this “debate” up and see if you can realize your full potential as a troll.
I know, it was one of the first things you did – calling me a troll instead of arguing.
Of course you love it.
No. You couldn’t. That’s the point.
I’d rate that a 2/5. I know you’re capable of better. I can see where you’re going with that ad-hominem attack but you pulled the punch. I believe you correctly intuited that committing to the ad-hominem attack really undermines the credibility of you JAQ persona that you’ve invested a lot in.
If you really want to land that attack you would want to use a sock-puppet. That’s an advanced technique that you’re clearly not ready for.
I suggest you go with a strawman. Take your tendency to assume positions your opponent hasn’t actually stated but take it further. Build it up into a complete parody of their position and then attack that.
Go ahead and try, I know you can do this.
I’m so curious, what did you hope to achieve with your little counter-troll routine? What about what I said got so under your skin that you fixated on it?
Now now. You’re not going to get better at this if you don’t put in the hard work. Go do your homework, take your time and really impress me,
Link an example.
Lol, remember when you pretended you could give an example but you just don’t want to?
Good times.
Great first effort. Create the imaginary position that I am pretending to have examples and don’t actually.
You have to remember when you’re trolling that there is more than one audience. Of course you’re trying to waste the time and frustrate people legitimately engaged in discussion and waste their time. The other and more important goal is to discredit your opponent and make them look ineffectual in the eyes of spectators to the discussion.
On that dimension, your attempted strawman falls flat because nobody here cares about who you trolled and precisely how. If you want your strawman to resonate with the audience you need to steer it back to the UHC / Luigi Mangione discussion that brought everyone here. Try one of your previous tacks where you presume I support the murder of Brian Whatsisname because I’m some sort of communist… or whatever. It really works great because you can take it wherever you please.
“Imaginary” loooool.
You do. :) You made it your little mission to “counter-troll” me because you cared so much.
Ah yes, why not double-down on making things up and pretending I said them.
You really are the master troll. I’m impressed.
I won’t tell you that mockery has no place in a trolling campaign but for it to succeed it needs to be delivered with actual humor. I don’t think that’s one of your strengths.
Go back to the drawing board and see if you can come up with a good ad-hominem. Better yet, take the rest of the evening and put some actual thought and research into it. Let’s see what you can come up with.
Come on, bud, gimme one moment of honesty and then you can hop back into this persona. What was it?
Nah, I gave you honesty one time. You turned around and attacked it. My motivations are clear but you’re just going to actually read what I wrote. It’s in there, I promise.
These half-assed attempts at asking honest questions are just clearly more low-effort attempts to make me engage on your level. Come up with something different and impressive or admit you’re a hack and no good at this.
What a shame, I genuinely don’t understand what it was. I’ve been nothing but good faith this whole time, sarcastic sure, but always good faith, unless someone started deliberately trolling me (aka you).
Truly wish you could just communicate what it was that triggered your response.
I’d love to know what you’d consider the difference to be between “just asking questions”, and actually asking questions.
I genuinely cannot find where you think I was “just asking questions”. I’d love to know what you’d prefer to see as a response instead.
More demands of proof, so tiresome and repetitive. Thanks for the laughs. Blocking now.