Tu quoque---effective debating strategy?

[Brian63]

It is not so much about the discussion of it, as the tone of it. I would enjoy your posts more if they were not as combative frequently, and cooled things down more in a civil manner. Get more to the substance of the points then.

 

[Treedbear]

It is not so much about the discussion of it, as the tone of it. I would enjoy your posts more if they were not as combative frequently, and cooled things down more in a civil manner. Get more to the substance of the points then.

That's and odd criticism following on your own OP. Especially since you overlooked a really valuable argument that you might find useful with your friends in the other forum.

I don't think there is (necessarily) a logical fallacy embedded in pointing out to your opponent that they themselves are engaging in the behaviour they think is wrong. Such behaviour might NOT be wrong. It might actually be persuasively helpful/logical to show your opponent that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Them : Religion is bad.
Me : Atheism is a religion.

That's not just a tu quoque, it's also an equivocation fallacy. (Though, of course, either way, it fails to support your position, and it's certainly logically fallacious on both counts).

If I say "Religion is bad", then I am using the word 'religion' as it is defined in the OED (https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/161944)


Under that definition, atheism clearly is NOT a religion.

Of course, you can use a different definition:

4 b figurative. A pursuit, interest, or movement, followed with great devotion.

Under that definition, atheism might be a religion - But under that definition, I wouldn't characterise religion as bad.
...

You should take a lesson from him in debate strategy. Instead you argued that tu quoque is useful as an attack. And you now claim to have issues with bilby being overly combative? You should give him credit for appealing to reason rather than putting up a smoke screen. Serve the god of reason, because in the end the only arguments worth making are the one's that endure. Maybe then you can talk about the need to be civil.

 

[Brian63]

That's and odd criticism following on your own OP.

How so? In the OP I was referring to people who basically throw the first punch. As long as they demonstrate a willingness to play nice, I do too. It is only if they initiate a harsh tone that I will reciprocate it.

Especially since you overlooked a really valuable argument that you might find useful with your friends in the other forum.

? Not sure what you mean there.

You should take a lesson from him in debate strategy. Instead you argued that tu quoque is useful as an attack. And you now claim to have issues with bilby being overly combative?

Yes, as I have observed as well a tendency for bilby to heighten and escalate the heated rhetoric on a regular basis, when unprovoked by others.

Serve the god of reason, because in the end the only arguments worth making are the one's that endure.

Sound arguments can endure in the sense that they become popular. But so can unsound arguments. So whichever ones endure is not a useful criterion for determining whichever is sound. Or even most helpful for rhetorical and strategic effect.

 

[Treedbear]

How so? In the OP I was referring to people who basically throw the first punch. As long as they demonstrate a willingness to play nice, I do too. It is only if they initiate a harsh tone that I will reciprocate it.

You said:

It is not so much about the discussion of it, as the tone of it. I would enjoy your posts more if they were not as combative frequently, and cooled things down more in a civil manner. Get more to the substance of the points then.

And yet you're talking about throwing punches. That sounds combative to me. Maybe not as direct. More like passive-aggressive. If someone uses that on me it shuts down the conversation instantly. I'd rather deal with bilby since he always starts out with his basic premise. Yeah he can pile it on, but as long as the epithets are under control his basic points are always clear. Maybe the people on that forum you visit couldn't take that and get overly defensive. Your technique seems to me like an attempt at a diversion when maybe you can't defend your position. So the danger would be that both sides simply disengage and neither side wins. That's not a good enough reason for me to frequent a forum.

? Not sure what you mean there.

Bilby was pointing out the flaw in Lion IRC's reasoning regarding atheism as religion in equivocating two distinctly different meanings of religion as if they were the same. Something that theists often do with otherwise useful words.

You should take a lesson from him in debate strategy. Instead you argued that tu quoque is useful as an attack. And you now claim to have issues with bilby being overly combative?

Yes, as I have observed as well a tendency for bilby to heighten and escalate the heated rhetoric on a regular basis, when unprovoked by others.

He doesn't hesitate to call people out on long running issues. If it doesn't concern me I don't try to figure out what it's all about. If it does concern me I take it very seriously. He's caused me to change my stand on important issues going way back. I'm not here because it's comfortable. I'm here to be challenged.

Serve the god of reason, because in the end the only arguments worth making are the one's that endure.

Sound arguments can endure in the sense that they become popular. But so can unsound arguments. So whichever ones endure is not a useful criterion for determining whichever is sound. Or even most helpful for rhetorical and strategic effect.

There are two types of posters here. The ones who engage because they want to strengthen and test their own sense of understanding of the truth, and the ones who just want to bolster their prestige in the eyes of others. For them any means to an end will suffice because they lack sufficient faith in their own ability to reason. Those are the ones who favor arguments because they're popular. I find the better and more enduring arguments are often less than popular and often contrarian. That's especially true when neither side can agree. If you want to convince someone then you have to force them to want to think. Not lull them into acceptance.

 

[WAB]

"You are demonstrably incapable of knowing anything at all..."

Lion has repeatedly demonstrated an incapacity to use the tools of reason and logic that are a prerequisite for knowledge.

You're no fun anymore.

Its OK WAB
bilby always makes me smile.
I inadvertently triggered him. I could do it on purpose but that would be trolling.

Bilby knows that you DO actually, really, really know some things, and with certainty. But he is making a good point in pointing out the distinction between believing and knowing. He knows you know when you know, and that you believe when you believe, and he knows you know that he knows that you know what you know and that you believe what you believe. He's just being persistent, consistent, and a royal pain in the ass.

 

[Brian63]

And yet you're talking about throwing punches. That sounds combative to me. Maybe not as direct. More like passive-aggressive.

A more apt analogy would be that it is preventing someone from bullying another person around, by not simply letting them get away with throwing insults or punches without consequence.

Yeah he can pile it on, but as long as the epithets are under control his basic points are always clear.

Pile *what* on exactly? The uncalled for, escalating, and hyperbolic insults? It is the times he does so that is the very matter under scrutiny here.

Maybe the people on that forum you visit couldn't take that and get overly defensive.

They initiate it. They need to learn that they should not throw punches in the first places if they want to avoid a fight. I do not throw punches to begin with, it is they who do (noting that they happen to take criticisms of their religion as personal criticisms of themselves, which their condition has groomed them to do very well).

Your technique seems to me like an attempt at a diversion when maybe you can't defend your position.

You are not reading and hearing it right then. I only throw personal punches if they did so at me to begin with. If they strictly wanted to argue the merits of the arguments, that is fine with me. That rarely happens though. They make and take everything as personal.

So the danger would be that both sides simply disengage and neither side wins. That's not a good enough reason for me to frequent a forum.

I do not think "neither side wins". I have learned many arguments, counter-arguments, glimpses into the fundamentalist mindset, etc. that I would not have if I did not frequent that forum and participate in it. Other atheists who have posted there and I have helped each other and taught/learned from each other too.

He doesn't hesitate to call people out on long running issues. If it doesn't concern me I don't try to figure out what it's all about. If it does concern me I take it very seriously. He's caused me to change my stand on important issues going way back. I'm not here because it's comfortable. I'm here to be challenged.

Being challenged on the merits of your arguments by a person who is willing to be civil and friendly is different from being challenged who has a tendency to throw in a lot of personal punches when they were never being attacked in the first place. I have witnessed bilby do the latter for a long time, and I wish that would change. The conversations could be much more productive.

There are two types of posters here. The ones who engage because they want to strengthen and test their own sense of understanding of the truth, and the ones who just want to bolster their prestige in the eyes of others.

Those 2 types are hardly exhaustive of all the possibilities. For example, there can be posters who are more activist about their positions and want to advocate for them, convincing others of the merits of their positions. So they do not only want to improve themselves, they also want to improve others and everyone would win then.

If you want to convince someone then you have to force them to want to think. Not lull them into acceptance.

Agreed. But the question at issue in this thread is regarding the specifics of how to do that. If you present your argument in a very civil manner and people respond with all sorts of nasty ad hominems, poisoning the wells, red herrings, etc. in an attempt to bully you, then they need to learn that their plan A methods will not work, and indeed will backfire. Now that their usual scare tactics have been broken, they will have to do something else. Either a new line of personal attacks, or using a more gentle tone, or staying silent, etc. But their initial fight-fest approach has to be stopped early on.

 

[Lion IRC]

Are there other fallacies that you knowingly and intentionally commit, when engaged in hostile debates with another person? Because it is immediately effective and necessary as a rhetorical weapon before getting to the real substance of your views.



Relatedly, I have read different definitions of a "strawman" fallacy and some explicitly state that it is an intentional misrepresentation of another person's views. Other definitions do not specify that. But I had long understood that a strawman could involve an unintentional, accidental misstatement of the other person's views.

Getting back to the Op
I think in order to qualify as a logical fallacy, the intent of the persuasive statement must entail a clear attempt at a necessary inference.

The tu quoque is frequently little more than a case of calling out someone's hypocrisy rather than..."you don't practice what you preach therefore your argument is unsound."

 

[Copernicus]

Are there other fallacies that you knowingly and intentionally commit, when engaged in hostile debates with another person? Because it is immediately effective and necessary as a rhetorical weapon before getting to the real substance of your views.



Relatedly, I have read different definitions of a "strawman" fallacy and some explicitly state that it is an intentional misrepresentation of another person's views. Other definitions do not specify that. But I had long understood that a strawman could involve an unintentional, accidental misstatement of the other person's views.

Getting back to the Op
I think in order to qualify as a logical fallacy, the intent of the persuasive statement must entail a clear attempt at a necessary inference.

The tu quoque is frequently little more than a case of calling out someone's hypocrisy rather than..."you don't practice what you preach therefore your argument is unsound."

But if you can forgive the combative tone of bilby's post and just look at the substance of his criticism of your post, I think that he was correct. Calling out someone's hypocrisy is not a valid form of argument. It is a logical fallacy, not because it ok to be hypocritical, but because it attacks the character of the person making the argument, not the argument that the person is making. Someone can be a poor speller and still correctly and logically argue that another person is a poor speller. Donald Trump may tell a lot of lies, but that doesn't mean that he cannot correctly point out that someone else is telling a lie.

 

[Lion IRC]

Bilbys ad hominem laden post was a collection of unsupported opinions about my ability to think (rationally.) Trying to belittle his opponent is typical bilby white noise *yawn*

But if you look closely at what little substance there was, you don't find him actually addressing what I said.

He was going off on tangents about other forms of fallacy. Off topic.
...an equivocation fallacy...ascribing to your opponent an opinion you have no evidence that he holds (strawman fallacy)...

bilby himself even admits that he isn't and won't address the substance.
"I could deal similarly with the blatant illogic of your other examples, but frankly, life's too short...."

These were my examples of useful tu quoque methods of rebuttal.

Them : Religion is bad.
Me : Atheism is a religion.

Them : The afterlife is wishful thinking.
Me : Living like there's no afterlife is wishful thinking.

Them : Pedophilia is wicked
Me : So is abortion.

Them : Black lives matter.
Me : So do white lives.

Now, I don't claim that them/they are necessarily wrong because of the inference of the me/my tu quoque retort. That WOULD be a logical fallacy. But I'm not saying you're a hypocrite I'm saying...if you're right then so am I.

If religion IS bad and atheism is a religion the logical conclusion is inescapable. BUT...the tu quoque might persuade my opponent that religion is not necessarily bad. If its OK for the atheist to hold a belief about God(s) then maybe they should stop belittling the universal/ubiquitous human practice of holding a belief about God.

If its OK for the atheist to hold a wishful thinking belief about the afterlife, then why can't I also find happiness in a sincere belief about the afterlife?

The pro-choice person who says that child abuse is evil and immoral isn't wrong because of their hypocrisy. My tu quoque isn't an attempt to persuade them away from their lopsided view about the value of the welfare of the child (or the mother). Its an attempt to get them to embrace my more consistent view about child protection.

The #BLM position isn't one I disagree with, its one I support as a subset of the worldview that ALL lives matter irrespective of skin color.



Maybe pot smokers and alcoholics ARENT weaklings who can't handle life.

 

[Copernicus]

Bilbys ad hominem laden post was a collection of unsupported opinions about my ability to think (rationally.) Trying to belittle his opponent is typical bilby white noise *yawn*

But if you look closely at what little substance there was, you don't find him actually addressing what I said.

He was going off on tangents about other forms of fallacy. Off topic.
...an equivocation fallacy...ascribing to your opponent an opinion you have no evidence that he holds (strawman fallacy)...

bilby himself even admits that he isn't and won't address the substance.
"I could deal similarly with the blatant illogic of your other examples, but frankly, life's too short...."

That isn't what he said. He said that he would not address the REST of your examples. What he addressed was substantive, minus the remarks that offended you. And you provide a great example of what is wrong with ad hominem arguments like the tu quoque. They don't attack the conclusion, just the individual defending it, and that gives the target an opportunity to ignore substance and address the ad hominem. And that is precisely how you dealt with bilby's post.

Let me address your examples from a different perspective.

Them : Religion is bad.
Me : Atheism is a religion.

Them : The afterlife is wishful thinking.
Me : Living like there's no afterlife is wishful thinking.

Them : Pedophilia is wicked
Me : So is abortion.

Them : Black lives matter.
Me : So do white lives.

Now, I don't claim that them/they are necessarily wrong because of the inference of the me/my tu quoque retort. That WOULD be a logical fallacy. But I'm not saying you're a hypocrite I'm saying...if you're right then so am I.

If religion IS bad and atheism is a religion the logical conclusion is inescapable. BUT...the tu quoque might persuade my opponent that religion is not necessarily bad. If its OK for the atheist to hold a belief about God(s) then maybe they should stop belittling the universal/ubiquitous human practice of holding a belief about God.

No, logically both religion and atheism could both be bad. This is no reason to reject the claim that religion is bad. And bilby was right that this is a false equivalence, which actually spoils it as a good example of a tu quoque. Neither atheism nor theism are religions. They are philosophical positions that are neutral with respect to a doctrine or catechism. As bilby said, you were equivocating on the word "religion".

If its OK for the atheist to hold a wishful thinking belief about the afterlife, then why can't I also find happiness in a sincere belief about the afterlife?

You give poor examples, because they are loaded with false presuppositions. In this case, you don't refute the claim that belief in the afterlife is wishful thinking, but you don't even make an equivalent claim. Someone who believes in the afterlife can certainly live like there is no afterlife. What you mean is that the belief there is no afterlife is wishful thinking, but it isn't. Most people, but not everyone, would prefer to continue existing in some form after death whether or not they believe in an afterlife.

The pro-choice person who says that child abuse is evil and immoral isn't wrong because of their hypocrisy. My tu quoque isn't an attempt to persuade them away from their lopsided view about the value of the welfare of the child (or the mother). Its an attempt to get them to embrace my more consistent view about child protection.

Pro-choice is about abortion, not pedophilia, so it is a red-herring that, again, destroys the usefulness of your example as a tu quoque. Antiabortionism and pedophilia are not similar beliefs or behaviors, as we all know from the pedophilia problem in the Catholic church. One can be both a pedophile and opposed to abortion.

The #BLM position isn't one I disagree with, its one I support as a subset of the worldview that ALL lives matter irrespective of skin color.

Again, not a good example of a tu quoque argument. The "All lives matter" slogan is a straw man argument, because BLM is not a denial that lives of others matter. It is about the racist double standard that devalues Black lives. Everyone knows that, but those who say "All lives matter" are pushing back against the view that there is any double standard, which begs the question.

View attachment 30609

Maybe pot smokers and alcoholics ARENT weaklings who can't handle life.

This is a good example of a tu quoque, because alcohol and pot are both equivalent recreational drugs that people use to self-medicate with. This is unlike the examples that you made up. It is still a fallacy, because it is a charge of equivalent hypocrisy rather than a refutation of the argument. At this point, both individuals would start arguing about whether they are really hypocrites, and both could be perfectly right.

 

[Lion IRC]

Again, like bilby, you are getting bogged down in off-topic distractions as to whether or not atheism is a religion, whether or not there is such a thing as atheistic wishful thinking about the non existence of hell/heaven, whether abortion is just as harmful to children as paedophilia, whether #BLM is (itself) just another form of racist double standard, whether stoners are weaklings who can't handle life...

I don't want to debate these issues with you and that's NOT the thread topic. Start a derail if you like.

My point is that, as tu quoque rebuttals, these are examples which can be sufficiently persuasive to take the wind out of your opponents sails so to speak.

IF pot is no worse than alcohol then the cartoon rebuttal works to change the mind of the drinker who is anti-marijuana.

IF atheism is a religion - a belief about God - then atheists have no basis to label religion 'bad.

If murdering unborn babies is wicked then so is pedophia and vice versa.

This is the value of the tu quoque.

 

[abaddon]

My point is that, as tu quoque rebuttals, these are examples which can be sufficiently persuasive to take the wind out of your opponents sails so to speak.

Making a contentious counter-claim like in each of your examples inevitably puts wind into the opponent's sails. So you don't attain your stated desired outcome.

If you never noticed how much you only fuel the opponent's arguments with your "here, have a dose of my dogma" claims, it's for failing to pay attention.

In a previous post you offered this:

...the tu quoque might persuade my opponent that religion is not necessarily bad. If its OK for the atheist to hold a belief about God(s) then maybe they should stop belittling the universal/ubiquitous human practice of holding a belief about God...

This assumes you're right and that the atheist will see how right you are without you providing evidence. We're supposed to react with: "Lion's right, atheism is a religion! now I have to rethink my argument about religion being bad!" But YOU are the one who must show how the full "rethink" of the "religion is bad" claim should go, from start to finish. IOW you must support your counter-claim with evidence.

Your list of doomed-to-fail examples helps illustrate why the tu toque is always a mistaken tactic. You only toss the "dogma bomb" in, then walk away while they reasonably ask for reasons and you unreasonably don't give them. That behavior makes you exactly like the problematic fundies that the OP was talking about.

 

[Brian63]

...the tu toque is always a mistaken tactic.

As a generality (note I have not been following closely the back-and-forth exchange in detail others here are having with Lion), I do not think that is the case. Using tu toque is a helpful tactic in some cases. Even if employing it in response to a criticism they make of me does nothing to invalidate their criticism of me (which could be done separately and later), it is still useful in showing that something about their own beliefs is wrong. Make a huge crack in their worldview. Get them to see that something in their behaviors and/or beliefs is defective and needs fixing. Before they would be willing to change anything, they need to see that their existing views or actions are messed up in some manner. Defending my own views is not enough. They will still be comfortable with their own flawed views. Defending my own views plus criticizing their views is often too complicated for them and takes longer to understand or care about. So I instead respond by criticizing their views exclusively and simply. Use their own arguments against them, to get them to see their own arguments are going to hurt them. It is in their best interest to stop using them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...the tu toque is always a mistaken tactic.

As a generality (note I have not been following closely the back-and-forth exchange in detail others here are having with Lion), I do not think that is the case. Using tu toque is a helpful tactic in some cases.

So you've had instances where people epiphany up and start discussing like adults after you make with said fallacy?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again, like bilby, you are getting bogged down in off-topic distractions as to whether or not atheism is a religion, whether or not there is such a thing as atheistic wishful thinking about the non existence of hell/heaven, whether abortion is just as harmful to children as paedophilia, whether #BLM is (itself) just another form of racist double standard, whether stoners are weaklings who can't handle life...

I don't want to debate these issues with you and that's NOT the thread topic. Start a derail if you like.

My point is that, as tu quoque rebuttals, these are examples which can be sufficiently persuasive to take the wind out of your opponents sails so to speak.

In the sense of it derails the conversation, sure. But establishing a positive argument for your rebuttal by bringing something else up... that isn't remotely addressing anything.

Them : The afterlife is wishful thinking.
Me : Living like there's no afterlife is wishful thinking.
Them: So you can't defend that the afterlife exists?
Me: I was trying to deflate your argument and get the upper hand.
Them: I was trying to have a conversation.

or

Them : Religion is bad.
Me : Atheism is a religion.
Them: Atheism is part of a dichotomy, not a selection of dogmatic rules and regulations based on alleged spirituality. Atheism doesn't dictate any required moral code. It makes just a single statement or which an infinite number of worldviews can come forth.
Me: But Atheism is a religion!
Them: For Atheism to be a religion, it needs something to dictate, there is nothing to dictate in Atheism other than there is/are no gods. Everything else is left up to philosophical ideologies as they impact one's life and its impact on the lives of others. You can't have a Church of Atheism as there would be nothing to say.
Me: ATHEISM IS A RELIGION!!! I'm not derailing this conversation! I'm refusing to even have one! *smug*

 

[abaddon]

...the tu toque is always a mistaken tactic.

As a generality (note I have not been following closely the back-and-forth exchange in detail others here are having with Lion), I do not think that is the case. Using tu toque is a helpful tactic in some cases.

So you've had instances where people epiphany up and start discussing like adults after you make with said fallacy?

I find it unlikely because I've never seen it happen.

But I have seen people start talking after a trade of "personal attacks" though. It's not in-line with human psychology that one or the other became ashamed of his hypocrisy and decided to straighten up - that's possible but unlikely. What's far more likely is they merely wanted to expand upon and clarify their point.

There is a point there even in ad homs. "You pro-choice people are baby killers!" is someone emotionally asserting "abortion is murder". So I think it's always best to nevermind that the point was stated in "bad form" and just address the point.

 

[Copernicus]

...the tu toque is always a mistaken tactic.

As a generality (note I have not been following closely the back-and-forth exchange in detail others here are having with Lion), I do not think that is the case. Using tu toque is a helpful tactic in some cases. Even if employing it in response to a criticism they make of me does nothing to invalidate their criticism of me (which could be done separately and later), it is still useful in showing that something about their own beliefs is wrong. Make a huge crack in their worldview. Get them to see that something in their behaviors and/or beliefs is defective and needs fixing. Before they would be willing to change anything, they need to see that their existing views or actions are messed up in some manner. Defending my own views is not enough. They will still be comfortable with their own flawed views. Defending my own views plus criticizing their views is often too complicated for them and takes longer to understand or care about. So I instead respond by criticizing their views exclusively and simply. Use their own arguments against them, to get them to see their own arguments are going to hurt them. It is in their best interest to stop using them.

Brian, what bothers me about your defense of the tu quoque fallacy is that you seem to think that a personal attack is more convenient and effective than an attack on the logic or evidence for an argument. That is, you seem to feel that it is a kind of shortcut that can be more effective than a much more thoughtful reply. I suspect that you are also motivated by the satisfaction it gives you to attack someone for being a hypocrite, not just the effectiveness of persuading that person that (s)he is wrong. In any case, I think you are wrong in your belief that your approach is going to do much more than anger your opponent and motivate attempts to counterattack you on a personal level. Worse, third parties viewing your interaction will not necessarily disagree with your criticism of your opponent's character, but you will not give them a decent reason to reject that person's argument, since the fact that your opponent is a hypocrite may not apply to everyone who makes the same argument.

Lion: I think that abaddon and Jimmy Higgins gave excellent replies to your rebuttal of my post, so I don't see a need to add anything further to what I said.

 

[Brian63]

So you've had instances where people epiphany up and start discussing like adults after you make with said fallacy?

Not instantaneously. Not without continuous effort. Not with complete success all the time. But it has indeed sometimes helped. Even if they did not behave as adults, they may not behave as the same childish brats that they had before. They simply would lay low for awhile, for instance. Or even if they themselves continue to fight back aggressively, it will expose their hypocrisy to the audience that the accuser's own accusations work even better against themselves than they would on the target.

 

[Brian63]

Brian, what bothers me about your defense of the tu quoque fallacy is that you seem to think that a personal attack is more convenient and effective than an attack on the logic or evidence for an argument.

It sometimes does that, whether or not it bothers you. Their debating style is extremely inflammatory, personally-oriented, dogmatic, irrational, shallow, and a game. They are trolling to various extents and in different ways. Please make sure to understand this important point---I am not using tu quoque exclusively in my entire conversation with them. Instead, I am relying on it in combination. Tu quoque would be used more heavily at the onset of our exchanges, only after they decide to start throwing personal punches. After those backfire on them and they stop employing them, then we move on to the actual substance, evidence, and evidence of the argument. If you only dismantle the logic of their arguments though, then they will find some very cheap route to continue their very antagonistic attacks on you. It happened to me very recently, where the other person kept getting refuted on several arguments, but never acknowledged being wrong. Instead he just shifted over to a very different subject. We first started talking about COVID precautions (he thinks it is all overhyped) and several respondents exposed several flaws in his views. Then he went on to other topics like whether I voted for Biden, whether Biden refused to say the word "God" in his speeches, how atheism cannot explain certain mysteries of the universe, etc. He simply would change subjects, constantly. So I chose to make the exchange more personal, and challenge him to stay on 1 topic and resolve it before going to 100 other different ones. For him to change his behaviors or even his beliefs, he first had to become uncomfortable with his current ones. Just making a dry logical refutation does nothing compelling to change a person. It needs to become more personal to them.

That is, you seem to feel that it is a kind of shortcut that can be more effective than a much more thoughtful reply. I suspect that you are also motivated by the satisfaction it gives you to attack someone for being a hypocrite, not just the effectiveness of persuading that person that (s)he is wrong.

Your suspicion is correct. Sometimes I do gain some satisfaction from that as well. Whether that is the primary or a lesser motivation varies. Regardless of its priority in my motivation though, the technique is still helpful.

In any case, I think you are wrong in your belief that your approach is going to do much more than anger your opponent and motivate attempts to counterattack you on a personal level.

I think that is wrong. They are very ignorant about atheists, science, their own religion, etc. They have what they believe are knockout arguments to prove the existence of god, demonstrate how evil the baby-murdering atheists are, etc. But their underlying assumptions are shallow, naive, and wrong. They are overconfident though and so they will go in with everything they (falsely believe they) have. They do not give leeway to anyone else's beliefs, only their own. They will be aggressive and personal, because of the nature of their tribalistic religious beliefs and community's suppression of any dissent. So I simply show that we cannot be bullied. If they want to throw personal attacks, they should learn to be prepared to receive them. Once they do learn that lesson, then we can broach the subjects more seriously.

Worse, third parties viewing your interaction will not necessarily disagree with your criticism of your opponent's character, but you will not give them a decent reason to reject that person's argument, since the fact that your opponent is a hypocrite may not apply to everyone who makes the same argument.

As explained above, I do not *only* apply tu quoque in isolation. It is done as a first (counter)step, and then subsequently followed on by a more serious analysis of the merits of the arguments. First they have to stop behaving as little brats though. Then we can start talking like adults.

 

[Lion IRC]

Lion: I think that abaddon and Jimmy Higgins gave excellent replies to your rebuttal of my post

I don't agree.

And I think you're (still) missing the point of the tu quoque tactic.

Imagine if you were being lectured about sexual promiscuity/immorality by some clergy person whose own organisation was perceived as having pedophiles in its midst. Do you play the tu quoque card? Do you play the 'people who live in glass houses' card? Do you play the Matthew 7:5 card?