> "I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the [...] toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition."

I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem.

▲

JKCalhoun 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"…the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem."

Yes, but I keep those considerations to myself. Might they inform my questions, may arguments? Absolutely. But they are not arguments in and of themselves.

▲

potsandpans 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then you were taught to argue incorrectly.

	▲	sublinear an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In truth, there is no "correct way" to argue. What convinces people says more about the audience. For many audiences, it isn't even about reason. That's especially true online where it's just power struggles between incoherent groups. In the specific case of atheists, they are arguing about something non-falsifiable. Those topics are natural cesspools for grifters and charlatans. It's one thing to study the topic, but quite another to give fiery speeches and sell books to people desperate to find their identity somewhere in that slop.