From RationalWiki
Revision as of 15:21, 12 February 2020 by Free Palestine (talk | contribs) (Free Palestine!)

Jump to: navigation, search

Free Palestine, death to Israel!

Debating a crank

If you value your time and/or sanity, then under no circumstances should you willingly enter into debate with a crank. A crank's cognitive processes are impregnable to all forms of logic, reason, evidence, and in extreme cases, basic facts.

Crank debaters tend to be much, much more motivated than you are. This enthusiasm is a big part of what makes them cranks. This means that the crank will have heard all of the common objections to their crankiness. The crank has memorized canned responses to each of them.

A common tactic of cranks is to hide behind elaborate rhetoric; if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. An extravagantly ornate lexicon filled with polysyllabic verbiage will be utilized unnecessarily, inappropriately, and often erroneously with a greater frequency of occurrence than Greenpeace produces outright falsehoods, because if their opposition's comprehension is obfuscated, it's because their opponent is cogitatively inadequate and not because the crank malcommunicates. Never expect a fancy word such as "terse" to grace their tongues. Superfluous rhetoric itself is not proof of crankery, but is a good warning sign.

All of this has the practical upshot of rendering the debate a fantastic waste of calories.

The worst of the cranks

Well known cranks (in alphabetical order) and some of their "ideas" include:

See also

External links