*How #KennethUdut #debates online - and why he can be *so
   freakin' annoying to deal with* by Kenneth Udut of course :)

   I just like to shake up people's certainties. I distill my
   certainties carefully, continually pitting ideas against one
   another to see what stays and what has to go on the back burner
   and hibernate for a while.

   I come up with conclusions and test them out by throwing it out
   there, like spaghetti against a wall to see if it's done by
   sticking.

   What I look for?

   a) circular arguments

   If I see circular reasoning, where everything makes perfect
   sense in their world... I know there's a limit to how far I can
   talk to them. A leads to B leads to C leads to A which makes A =
   C'' type of logic.

   b) stereotypical arguments (apologetics is the old fashioned
   word for it)

   If I see the SAME arguments presented by DIFFERENT people on
   different forums, even about different topics (like ''Jesus is
   the Answer'' or ''Science is about objective, evidence
   based...'' etc etc... I know I'm not getting far either. They're
   not talking to me - it's a programmed response that comes from
   being within a belief system; immersed in it, in fact.

   c) What's left.

   Humans I can talk to. I try to shake off the programmed
   responses as quickly as I can, by showing how I don't fit into
   their neat little boxes. This can be frustrating to some and so
   they leave. I'd like to consider that a victory but I can't,
   because I prefer understanding with disagreement than seeing a
   rage quit.

   There's humans beneath the politicized responses... and I like
   to find them. If I have to present myself as the Village Idiot
   to do so, well, then that's what I'll do. :)#