"I HAVE WON!!"

[JoeP]

It seems to me that there's a common condition in which people claim to have won an argument, and appear to sincerely believe it, even when nothing in formal logic would suggest that they have, and when the people they are talking to deny it.

Is there a term for this?

Sometimes it happens when the other person doesn't reply. "Aha! You've been silent for 5 minutes! I HAVE WON!" Or when the other person gives up on account of a lack of logic, or consistent terms, or whatever. "Aha! You've given up! I HAVE WON!" Or for no clear reason at all. "Aha! I have caused you to get angry! / make a minor logical error! / maek a spelling mistake! I HAVE WON!"

(I could quote some examples from forum posts, but I might be wrong about any specific one, and y'all can easily find your own examples.)

It's not trolling per se, although a troll could of course fake it to rile people (it can certainly be extremely annoying).

It's not exactly ignorance or stupidity, although it probably is often part of a strong desire to believe or promote a conclusion and a corresponding misunderstanding or disregard of principles of logic (or rhetoric).

(And if the person is actually right and the majority (the :ff: groupthink) are wrong, no matter: I'm stipulating the context.)

But I have this feeling there's a term for this specific behaviour or tactic, in a frame of reference where the person is wrong. And if not, there ought to be.

[biochemgirl]

I recall a discussion where I was told I was being emotional, as if that somehow invalidated everything I was saying. That drives me crazy and I think it's especially the knee jerk reaction when debating with a woman.

Regardless, in those situations I just tend to let them think they've "won". That's probably the only thing they have to hold on to in life.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

No, I think "stupid" covers it nicely. Throw in "dishonest," and we've got a more complete picture.

[JoeP]

But there are many other ways of being stupid, ignorant and dishonest. And many other kinds of logical fallacy (ad feminem, perhaps, bcg). There needs to be a word for this particular kind of flying directly against the evidence. I reckon.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

There needs to be a word for this particular kind of flying directly against the evidence. I reckon.

yguy

[JoeP]

yguy vb.
1. ...

I can see it working. Still, even yguy displays other kinds of behaviour as well.

[lisarea]

I usually think of it as a form of gaming.

People just get into competitive mode sometimes, I figure, and they're not interested in the argument itself, but in winning it. I deal with this by not caring. If someone is making me repeat myself, or if I think they're intentionally trying to waste my time ignoring certain aspects of a discussion or trying to 'trick' me into some oddly constructed analogy or something, I just go away. If it's really that important to them to 'win' an argument, they can go ahead and think that. Once it's obvious that they're not discussing an issue but just defending their position, it is a waste of time. No matter how good or well supported your argument is, they're just approaching it defensively. There is no point at all in repeating it or refuting the same things over and over. If someone gets you to participate in something that boring, they really have won.

Also, I get that 'emotional' argument sometimes, too. Interestingly, it only happens on the internet, and only when the other person knows that I'm a lady. In real life, people complain about me being cold, calculating, and unemotional during arguments and things like that. The only logical explanation for them complaining about the exact opposite when they can't see me is that they are stupid, crazy, and probably projecting.

Ignore them, bcg. Seriously. You do not care what they think.

[JoeP]

People just get into competitive mode sometimes, I figure, and they're not interested in the argument itself, but in winning it. I deal with this by not caring. If someone is making me repeat myself, or if I think they're intentionally trying to waste my time ignoring certain aspects of a discussion or trying to 'trick' me into some oddly constructed analogy or something, I just go away. If it's really that important to them to 'win' an argument, they can go ahead and think that. Once it's obvious that they're not discussing an issue but just defending their position, it is a waste of time. No matter how good or well supported your argument is, they're just approaching it defensively. There is no point at all in repeating it or refuting the same things over and over.

All that :nod:

Except that it's not always just "competitive mode", or at least "me vs you" competition. Sometimes it seems to be defensive - "my precious worldview vs everybody else" (often vs the real world :wink:).

[Alex]

I doubt that the "I've won" delusion is a common condition here at :ff: But some people tend to have an emotional investment in their opinions and logical contradiction has no effect on their beliefs. There are still the sincere Flat Earthers who are impervious to contrary evidence.

[JamesBannon]

Anyone who goes into a debate with the idea of "winning" is a loser by definition.

[beyelzu]

I don't know jb, I am highly competitive, and believe that I am right all of the time. I rarely admit error during debate. Between debate though I reflect and change my mind. I could link you to many posts of mine where I argued libertarian beliefs or that pc was evil, etc.


Rarely will you find that I admit defeat, but I still listen and later I change my mind. I do admit to it sometimes.

I think everyone is invested in their worldview, otherwise why would it be their worldview?

So color me a loser.


Oh and thanks to everyone who has ever beaten the shit out of me in debate even if I didn't admit it at the time. Im thinking of liv and ronin and lunachick and es and so many others.


But though I value the learning and the exchange, you can be damned sure that my intent is to win.

[Clutch Munny]

Loser.

[beyelzu]

dont be bitter, clutch, you were included in the and everyone else who has kicked my ass at one time or another.


:tmtongue:

[Crumb]

:woohoo: I win this thread! :irwinnar:

[godfry n. glad]

But though I value the learning and the exchange, you can be damned sure that my intent is to win.

Yeah...I thought this was obvious. You are a big dick.

[Plant Woman]

I usually stop and let the other person think they win. Mainly when they project their nonsense, or it isn't worth continuing a debate that is actually an argument.

BCG--Men can be just as emotional too. Anger is an emotion after all, and some of the biggest outbursts of emotion sometimes comes from men.

[mickthinks]

I doubt that the "I've won" delusion is a common condition here at :ff:

LOL Variations on that theme have been seen here:

You've been pretty effectively marginalized, though.
You're not very clever, so it's easy to make you look stupid that way. And that's what I enjoy doing, because you're a twat.

And the ironic capitulation, the sardonic "you win"–a clear projection of the poster's desire to declare him- or herself "the winner"–is a frequent flyer.

Mick

[ChuckF]

I get double miles on my Visa this month.

[yguy]

I usually stop and let the other person think they win.Which allows you to revel in a sense of superiority over that poor, self-deceived unfortunate.

So it's a win-win deal. :)

[Alex]

I doubt that the "I've won" delusion is a common condition here at :ff:

LOL Variations on that theme have been seen here:

You've been pretty effectively marginalized, though.
You're not very clever, so it's easy to make you look stupid that way. And that's what I enjoy doing, because you're a twat.

And the ironic capitulation, the sardonic "you win"–a clear projection of the poster's desire to declare him- or herself "the winner"–is a frequent flyer.

Mick
I'd distinguish between arguments about matters of fact and arguments about matters of opinion. "I've won" could be a perfectly reasonable claim if you can demonstrate that someone has persisted in a mistake or conclusion about a matter of fact. (There is also the technical possibility that you can "win" by refuting an argument on logical grounds).

But the same is not true where opinions are concerned. In the unlikely event of you changing someone's opinion, you have to get them to change their mind and perhaps to adopt your point of view.

[Garnet]

I don't care much about winning or losing. What I care most about is honest engagement and discourse. I've been wrong plenty of times and I've been right a few. The discussions I enjoy the most, well other than the playful ones, are the discussions where I can learn something and where there is a minimum of personal insult and dick flapping.

Having said that, whenever I see the "I've won!!!11111!!!" behavior, I'm immediately less inclined to interact with that person. Nine times out of ten, it's a childish claim without substance.

[Ensign Steve]

I recall a discussion where I was told I was being emotional...

If it's the one I was thinking of, you were talking about military wifery, and the dude was all "yer emotional!" and I was like :lolwut: cuz you totally weren't. That was so weird.

[Doctor X]

The phrase is "I win!"

--J.D.

[yguy]

Nine times out of ten, it's a childish claim without substance.I don't think there's ever any substance to it, if winning means figuratively standing with your foot on your opponent's chest.

Still, it amuses me to indulge in such juvenility every so often, especially in response to someone who bloody well deserves it. :cool:

[mickthinks]

I doubt that the "I've won" delusion is a common condition here at :ff:

LOL Variations on that theme have been seen here:

You've been pretty effectively marginalized, though.
You're not very clever, so it's easy to make you look stupid that way. And that's what I enjoy doing, because you're a twat.

And the ironic capitulation, the sardonic "you win"–a clear projection of the poster's desire to declare him- or herself "the winner"–is a frequent flyer.

Mick
I'd distinguish between arguments about matters of fact and arguments about matters of opinion. "I've won" could be a perfectly reasonable claim if you can demonstrate that someone has persisted in a mistake or conclusion about a matter of fact. (There is also the technical possibility that you can "win" by refuting an argument on logical grounds).

But the same is not true where opinions are concerned. In the unlikely event of you changing someone's opinion, you have to get them to change their mind and perhaps to adopt your point of view.

LOL I'd agree with much of that, Alex, but it seems to be something of a non sequitur. I'm not sure whether that's a matter of fact or a matter of opinion, but either way, I'm not trying to win, but to seek agreement.

Do you think this is an issue that is only of academic interest here or is it something that affects the :ff: community directly?

Mick

[Petra]

Discussions and conversations ftw. When people think they are arguing or debating, then there can be a competitive 'win at all costs' mentality sometimes. That can be a real shame, as it's often based more in pride and personality, at the expense of genuine communication.

Or maybe I just think that because I'm not very good at debating. :doh:

[lisarea]

I was going to say that everyone is competitive when they are arguing, but then I realized that I was maybe projecting, so I'll just say it's not uncommon to enjoy arguing for the sport of it. (And it's probably even less uncommon on a forum where like 75% of the active posters are lawyers.)

I can't speak for anyone else, but it's mostly when arguments get illogical and emotional that they're really pathetic; and that doesn't happen all that often here. (Or rather, when it happens, it's usually pretty predictable and easy to avoid.)

Search news feeds (or just search II) for instances of "sorry to say" or "I hate to tell you," which people often use to telegraph deeply held and completely unsupported conclusions; or "let me guess," which they use to telegraph ad homs and strawmen. Those are the kind of things that I mean when I talk about an argument being pointless and boring.

Being stubborn and arguing for sport aren't offenses I'd blow someone off for. I'm not quite hypocritical enough for that.

[Petra]

I don't mind the sport, and I've certainly engaged in it in the past. It can be invigorating, fo'shur.

But perhaps I'm projecting, because I've been reading a thread over at TalkRat about child support and it's got me feeling such hatred for some of it's participants that perhaps I'm wishful thinking about communicating, when really I'd just like to gouge out a few peoples testes with a rusty knife and stuff their sweaty scrotums down their ugly throats. :D

[Garnet]

I have both of those threads on ignore, now. I was doing fine until the sperm donor, dick flapping contingent arrived.

[Petra]

Both threads? I've just been reading one (in Gen Disc). Stumbled on it yesterday evening. A couple of people have come up a bit in my esteem, and a few have fallen. No shortage of nasty bastards in the world, eh?

Anyway, back to what makes me happy and keeps me sane (http://movielibrary.lynda.com/html/modPage.asp?ID=289). Coffee break over. :)

[JamesBannon]

I have both of those threads on ignore, now. I was doing fine until the sperm donor, dick flapping contingent arrived.

I arrived late, so I hope I'm not in that contingent! :D

[erimir]

It seems to me that there's a common condition in which people claim to have won an argument, and appear to sincerely believe it, even when nothing in formal logic would suggest that they have, and when the people they are talking to deny it.I think this applies to pretty much everyone. But most people don't proclaim that they've won. But I think plenty of people think to themselves that they have won arguments, at times, that they really haven't "won" (in the sense of making a better argument and/or being correct).

Or at least, it probably applies to me, since I'm pretty sure I'm wrong more often than I think I'm wrong. I don't normally make declarations of victory tho.
I don't know jb, I am highly competitive, and believe that I am right all of the time. I rarely admit error during debate. Between debate though I reflect and change my mind.
[...]
Rarely will you find that I admit defeat, but I still listen and later I change my mind. I do admit to it sometimes.We talked about this in a psychology class - that people can be convinced of something during an argument, but not "realize it" or come around to the position until quite a bit later.

At least part of that is pride, I think. Not all of it tho, I don't think.

[Garnet]

Both threads? I've just been reading one (in Gen Disc). Stumbled on it yesterday evening. A couple of people have come up a bit in my esteem, and a few have fallen. No shortage of nasty bastards in the world, eh?

Anyway, back to what makes me happy and keeps me sane (http://movielibrary.lynda.com/html/modPage.asp?ID=289). Coffee break over. :)

First thread is: Man forced to pay child support for child that isn't his. - Talk Rational! (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=9151)

As soon as Dlx2 showed up, it went to hell in a handbasket and subsequently my ignore list.

I didn't make it past the first iteration of "moron" in the second thread before I decided to pop that one on ignore. I'm not interested in that kind of dick flapping.

[Garnet]

I have both of those threads on ignore, now. I was doing fine until the sperm donor, dick flapping contingent arrived.

I arrived late, so I hope I'm not in that contingent! :D

Nah, you're not in that contigent. It's just another name for the blah, blah, blah douchebag crowd.

[mickthinks]

I didn't make it past the first iteration of "moron" in the second thread before I decided to pop that one on ignore. I'm not interested in that kind of dick flapping.

LOL :yeahthat:

But if it's someone trolling for the lulz, that's still kewl and funneh dick flapping, yes? :cheer:

[JamesBannon]

I think you might have Garnet mixed up with someone else, Mick.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Meh, he has us mixed up with people who give a shit about his endless crusade against nobody-knows-what (including, I strongly suspect, mick), so why not a little more error for flavour?

[ChuckF]

I didn't make it past the first iteration of "moron" in the second thread before I decided to pop that one on ignore. I'm not interested in that kind of dick flapping.

LOL :yeahthat:

But if it's someone trolling for the lulz, that's still kewl and funneh dick flapping, yes? :cheer:
Yep.

[Garnet]

Well, Mick, I normally don't reply to you because I popped you on ignore within the first day of my return to FF.

Just this once, then. I rarely find trolling for lulz entertaining. I often find it be cruel and childish. Dick flapping is not a phrase that I use as a compliment.

Now, back you go to your realm of whatever it is you do.

[ChuckF]

Dick flapping is not a phrase that I use as a compliment.
This must be a regional thing then. Like I say "Mom, this turkey is dick flappingly good."

[Garnet]

Dick flapping is not a phrase that I use as a compliment.
This must be a regional thing then. Like I say "Mom, this turkey is dick flappingly good."

Dammit, Chuck. I think you just ruined my signature phrase. :D

[biochemgirl]

:laugh: I so wanna use that at Christmas with the inlaws.

[Angakuk]

I think that the practice is, or ought to be, referred to as making a "Unilateral Declaration of Victory".

There also exists a subset of the practice that is known as "Premature Ejaculation of Victory". See the attached image for an example of same.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/1030-02.jpg

[JamesBannon]

Meh, he has us mixed up with people who give a shit about his endless crusade against nobody-knows-what (including, I strongly suspect, mick), so why not a little more error for flavour?

Uthgar! I haven't hugged you in a while, my friend :hug:

[ChuckF]

Dick flapping is not a phrase that I use as a compliment.
This must be a regional thing then. Like I say "Mom, this turkey is dick flappingly good."

Dammit, Chuck. I think you just ruined my signature phrase. :D

Also society.

[Garnet]

Dick flapping is not a phrase that I use as a compliment.
This must be a regional thing then. Like I say "Mom, this turkey is dick flappingly good."

Dammit, Chuck. I think you just ruined my signature phrase. :D

Also society.

Stop flapping your dick. :glare:

[ChuckF]

Why thank you :tiphat:

[Dingfod]

I thought it was 'dick fapping', not flapping. Anyway, back to the show.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Meh, he has us mixed up with people who give a shit about his endless crusade against nobody-knows-what (including, I strongly suspect, mick), so why not a little more error for flavour?

Uthgar! I haven't hugged you in a while, my friend :hug:

:glomp:

[Alex]

LOL I'd agree with much of that, Alex, but it seems to be something of a non sequitur. I'm not sure whether that's a matter of fact or a matter of opinion, but either way, I'm not trying to win, but to seek agreement.

You mean the distinction I made between arguments about facts and opinions? Is that a matter of fact or an opinion? I reckon it's an opinion. (So don't try to change my mind).

By the way, I don't think ChuckF's inputs about you implied that he was claiming "I've won" in whatever the dispute was between you and him. They look like subsidiary taunts or "shafts of irony" that are intended to provoke you rather than claim victory.

Do you think this is an issue that is only of academic interest here or is it something that affects the :ff: community directly?
I don't think this is a disinterested inquiry, so I won't attempt to answer the question.

[mickthinks]

I think an "I win" claim can be taunting and provoking. So your denial here is based on a false dichotomy, I reckon.

Do you think this is an issue that is only of academic interest here or is it something that affects the :ff: community directly?
I don't think this is a disinterested inquiry, so I won't attempt to answer the question.

That's all the more reason to offer an answer. Please, Alex, I'd appreciate it.

Mick

[Alex]

I think an "I win" claim can be taunting and provoking. So your denial here is based on a false dichotomy, I reckon.

Do you think this is an issue that is only of academic interest here or is it something that affects the :ff: community directly?
I don't think this is a disinterested inquiry, so I won't attempt to answer the question.

That's all the more reason to offer an answer. Please, Alex, I'd appreciate it.

Mick
I don't know that any false dichotomy can be detected in my saying that subsidiary taunts are not equivalent to a claim of "I win".

On the general issue you raise: I refused an answer because I thought that your question might be associated with your struggle against the lulz-hounds.

[ChuckF]

"shafts of irony"
This is my favorite thing I've read so far this week.

[mickthinks]

Thank Alex

I don't know that any false dichotomy can be detected in my saying that subsidiary taunts are not equivalent to a claim of "I win".
This is true, but that is not what you said earlier. If "I win" can be a taunt or provocation, then "it's a taunt intended to provoke" doesn't rule out the suggestion that it's also an "I win" claim. You seemed to think it did.

I refused an answer because I thought that your question might be associated with your struggle against the lulz-hounds.
Yep, they are connected. Why would you refuse to offer your opinion because of that? If it's because the lulz-hounds (neat tag!) discourage you from offering your honest opinion on issues like this, that's a serious problem for a forum dedicated to freedom of thought and expression, and it's time we stood up to them.

Mick

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Yeah, we should shut them down! For the sake of freedom of expression!

:lulztrain:

[ChuckF]

It's right there in the Internet Bill of Rights.

[mickthinks]

No need to shut anyone down–just find ways to encourage them to raise their game. (Does that help untwist the words that are somehow getting themselves twisted here?)
:sadnana:

[ChuckF]

And also, you should win things by watching!
:milhouse:

[Alex]

This is true, but that is not what you said earlier. If "I win" can be a taunt or provocation, then "it's a taunt intended to provoke" doesn't rule out the suggestion that it's also an "I win" claim. You seemed to think it did.
I didn't say that ChuckF's taunts should be understood as an "I win" claim. I said that his inputs (or some of them) were intended to provoke you rather than to claim victory. He might not be bothered about "winning" the argument - whatever it was. Nor did I say that merely claiming "I win" amounts to a taunt or provocation. But if you want to believe it does, it's immaterial to me.
Yep, they are connected. Why would you refuse to offer your opinion because of that? If it's because the lulz-hounds (neat tag!) discourage you from offering your honest opinion on issues like this, that's a serious problem for a forum dedicated to freedom of thought and expression, and it's time we stood up to them.
Mick
Is it wise to jump into someone else's private feud which has, apparently, a fairly long history? Do you never hunt with the lulz-hounds?

[ChuckF]

I didn't say that ChuckF's taunts should be understood as an "I win" claim. I said that his inputs (or some of them) were intended to provoke you rather than to claim victory.
Indeed that has been (and shall continue to be) my plain and stated intent.

[Leesifer]

I don't think it's working, Chuck
:untrain:

[mickthinks]

I didn't say that ChuckF's taunts should be understood as an "I win" claim.
No, it was I who suggested that. You appeared to be offering a reason to deny it.

I said that his inputs (or some of them) were intended to provoke you rather than to claim victory.
I am suggesting that whether or not he intended to taunt or provoke, that doesn't mean he was not making an "I win" claim. So, it isn't a reason for taking issue with my suggestion. Do you want to offer another one?

He might not be bothered about "winning" the argument.
There's no "might be" about it–he isn't bothered about arguments, he's trying to win what he calls 'the lulz'.

Is it wise to jump into someone else's private feud which has, apparently, a fairly long history?
I think your "Is it wise...?" implies you think there a risk of getting hurt. I think so to, but I think that it's sometimes worth taking. But I'm not asking you to take my side here, just to offer your simple honest opinion.

Do you think JoeP's OP applies to :ff: as well as to other forums?

Mick

[Alex]

Are you positively saying that you understand the quotes from ChuckF, which you included in your post #17, were or could be construed as "I win" claims? That's not how I understood them. I thought they were subsidiary taunts - i.e subsidiary to whatever the 'real issue' between you was at the time they were posted.

I think your "Is it wise...?" implies you think there a risk of getting hurt. I think so to, but I think that it's sometimes worth taking. But I'm not asking you to take my side here, just to offer your simple honest opinion.
Do you think JoeP's OP applies to :ff: as well as to other forums?
Mick

What you seem to be edging towards, Mick, is that I should join you in a rebellion against the Spirit of the Message Board. But I don't feel strongly enough about the supposed values of "a forum dedicated to freedom of thought and expression" - which you've invoked - to strive officiously for their maintenance. I don't expect to find the ideals of disinterested inquiry celebrated on an internet forum (I suppose they might be more honoured in the breach than the observance.) So I'm not alarmed or grieved by their absence.

If you would prefer to participate in a discussion group where standards are rigorously monitored and enforced by moderators or where self-regulation can be counted on, I don't think you'll find one in a "public square" like this.

[mickthinks]

Are you positively saying that you understand the quotes from ChuckF, which you included in your post #17, were or could be construed as "I win" claims?
Yes, I am saying they are variants on the theme laid out in the OP. There is nothing subsidiary about them–marginalising and belittling his opponents is the main event for Chuck, I believe.

What you seem to be edging towards, Mick, is that I should join you in a rebellion against the Spirit of the Message Board.
Er ... no, Alex. As I said, I am not asking you to take my side, simply to offer your honest opinion.

But I don't feel strongly enough about the supposed values of "a forum dedicated to freedom of thought and expression"
But you don't need to value the :ff: or strive for anything, I'm just asking your opinion.

Do you think JoeP's OP applies to :ff: as well as to other forums?

Mick

[ChuckF]

Yes, I am saying they are variants on the theme laid out in the OP. There is nothing subsidiary about them–marginalising and belittling his opponents is the main event for Chuck, I believe.

Well, you're an idiot, but that's not news to anybody. I enjoy marginalizing and belittling you, specifically.

[Kyuss Apollo]

Shift the paradigm. Instead of "I have won" just say "I am king."

Works for me. Why? Because I am.

[Alex]

Do you think JoeP's OP applies to :ff: as well as to other forums?

Mick

Joe P said: "It seems to me that there's a common condition in which people claim to have won an argument, and appear to sincerely believe it, even when nothing in formal logic would suggest that they have, and when the people they are talking to deny it".

I don't believe that condition is common on this message board - at least I haven't observed it occurring as a pure and unambiguous shout of "I WIN" when there is no reasoned argument to back it up. Not being a Scholar of the Threads, I can't be absolutely certain it never happens. It's just my opinion based on the threads I happen to have read.

If we include taunts or "marginalising" comments as surreptitious instances of "I win" claims, then it appears they are a lot more common than I suppose. But this depends on accepting your definition of the situation. From the information you supplied in support of your opinion (citing ChuckF's remarks about you), I don't believe you've proved your point.

As I've already made clear, I hope, I don't think JoeP's "common condition" - claiming victory by mere assertion - is rampant at :ff: I don't know whether it applies to other internet forums.

[Leesifer]

Oh dear Alex. I think you'll find that was not the opinion that mick was looking for. :wink:

[ChuckF]

Hey Lees, are you thinking what I'm thinking?

TIME FOR A CHARM OFFENSIVE

[Leesifer]

Shall we?

Are you bringing fresh spooge? Or should I open one of my jars?

[ChuckF]

Oh let's open a jar for tea! I'll bring the crumpets. Or would you prefer a :croissant:

:aristolove:

[Leesifer]

Too many choices, Chuck.

I'm an old fashioned kinda gal, so I'll take it straight out of the jar, thanks.

:chug:

[ChuckF]

Gosh I'd never guess yer from Essex.

[Leesifer]

I hide it well, my man. It's hard but I find I can hold myself erect and proud knowing that nobody will know.

Unless they read my location of course - I really should change that.

[JoeP]

Alex, mick,
I was thinking specifically of :ff: and specifically of recent posts. Other forums I currently visit tend not to have combative arguments (or if they do maybe I ignore those threads before they get to that point).

egg:
Oh good, I wasn't sure if I pwnz0rd seebs, but now that I see he's not the kind that can admit defeat, this state of denial will taste that much sweeter.

...

Oh no matter, I guess I

HAVE CAUSED ALL OF YOU TO SHOVE YOUR HEADS UP YOUR HINEYS



*looks at scorecard*
...

Fuck yeah! The level of anger from you naysayers points to the fact that I won, we won, and Sovereignism has been affirmed in the very thread that was meant to attack it.


But I certainly don't claim this is something specific to FF. I'm sure it happens everywhere.

[Alex]

Alex, mick,
I was thinking specifically of :ff: and specifically of recent posts. Other forums I currently visit tend not to have combative arguments (or if they do maybe I ignore those threads before they get to that point).

But I certainly don't claim this is something specific to FF. I'm sure it happens everywhere.

The two (extreme) examples that you've provided are certainly egregious claims of "I win". But I think both posters thought their claims were justified by reasoned arguments. I know that nobody else did.

On the question of whether personal insults can be disguised claims of "I win": there is some reason to believe they may sometimes contain implicit assertions of superiority. However, the only witness called for the prosecution was ChuckF, and he said that his insults were motivated by a love of "lulz" - at least when his target was Mick.