Ooz, you're the biggest troll on this website, it's amazing.

The only reason you made this thread was to get even more cheap shots in spreading your anti-west rhetoric.

Your trolling is so blatant its almost entertaining.

I think the best possible outcome for this thread is that it forces oozy to practice what he's preaching in it.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this title, the OP doesn't help it any either.

A constructive deconstruction of
oozyisms guide to constructive discussion

Introduction

A huge number of new members have joined ATS, I think it is important to set up a guide to constructive discussion.

Which the following will be an example of how NOT to do it.

Many threads have been trolled, spammed and completely diverted and have become useless considering objectivity.

To change that, I have created this thread to discuss how we can improve our discussion, to help us end threads with conclusions rather than uncertainty.

I, OOZISM should know. I have mastered the trolling and random spamming of said threads. The following will be an example of how I've carried out these activities from my immense personal experiences.

Point number1 (what is your point)

First you have to understand fully what your point is.

For example, "America is bad".

Now here is an example of my main undying obsession America. I cannot go a day without drooling over thoughts of sugar plums dancing in my head. Err, um, I mean ways in which to slam the US whether it is needed or not.

Point number2 (prove your point)

What do you have to support your point?

What evidence do you have which helped you come to this conclusion?

For example "America is bad because it invaded Iraq for no legitimate reasons (false reasons), and risked millions of lives in the process".

Here is a prime example of my trolling within my own thread and how I veil {badly} my own personal agenda.

Point number3 (how to counter constructively)

How can you counter the above assertion constructively?

To help you differentiate between constructive and nonconstructive counter,

I will lay the un-constructive counter first.

An Example of un-constructive counter would be:
("Iraq was bad before US invaded and occupied it". ---->Choosing this one
"You are a terrorist sympathizer for making such points"
"You are anti-American and anti-Western not to mention anti-Semite"
"You are an idiot")
....

Why is the above nonconstructive counter? Because it takes the focus away from the original point, hence," US is bad".

Noticed how I sidestepped the most obvious answer { # 4} and instead chose another? I went with the most popular answer. I'll also ignore the fact the US has drastically reduced it's troop levels in Iraq and that most of the conflict has been sectarian in nature for the past several years.

Pointing out that Saddam was worse, is not constructive.

Here I avoid the real hard facts and just simply proceed with my own perceptions. If I acknowledge it then my house of cards would come crumbling down around my ankles so we simply wont discuss it.

An example of a constructive counter would be to ask certain questions regarding the OP:
"Does US invading Iraq for illegitimate reasons, make US bad?"
"Is US defined by just one small portion of history"?
"Is US defined by just one action?"
"How can US be bad if it is also good?"

You are trying to counter his point, not his evidence which backs his point.

Here I'll just repeat my tactics: You are trying to counter his point, not his evidence which backs his point. because addressing real evidence is not conducive to my trolling technique. Instead I'll rely on voodoo internet pop culture innuendo.

-If the evidence is clearly false, then it is understandable to concentrate on the evidence rather than the point.
-If the evidence is uncertain, tell him how the evidence is uncertain, and leave it at that, or ask him for other evidence which backs his point.
-If the evidence is true, concentrate on the point, rather than the evidence.

Here is my classic reaction in a nut shell. If the Evidence is true. Avoid it. By all means derail the thread as best as possible. Never admit that you have made a Gravely horrendous blunder.

Normally I'll try the following. I'll add "ZZZZZZZZZZ <-----My attempt at wit. and "Nice Try" or "Please Try again" etc. I call them my "oozyisms" Pretty cool huh?

Point number4 (If evidence backing his point is true)

If it is true, then concentrate on the point, rather than trying to divert attention.

For Example, "Yes US invaded Iraq for illegitimate reasons, but does that make the U.S. bad"?

For Example, "US has taken a lot of actions which are regarded as good, does that mean US is good using the same logic?"

Here is where I confuse even myself by introducing it then letting it die from lack of forethought. Notice how it just hangs there and goes nowhere?

Point number5 (conclusion)

1. If the opposition is correct, that US also has good qualities, along side the bad ones, then the point of the OP is flawed, and the discussion has come to a conclusion (even if the evidence is true).

Here I had to really dig deep and admit to myself that my over all stratagem was flawed. I stopped making sense and just started jabbering on.

In the above sense, the conclusion is, that yes US has done wrong, but that doesn't make the US wrong, the world is not black and white. In the same manner, US has done right, but that doesn't make the US right, the world is not black and white.

Notice how I came to the very same conclusion that about 99.9% of the world has already figured out?

Add your thoughts regarding a constructive discussion which doesn't lead to the path of trolling, spamming, clear off-topicism etc.

I can provide all of the trolling, spamming, clear off-topicism myself, because I wouldn't want others to do on to me what I've done to them. That would be mean

Thanks for your patience

oz

I think I gave myself a nose bleed.