EPIC FAIL

Among the semi-literate exclamations of surprise, mockery, or dismay in current use is the phrase "EPIC FAIL." No, no, no. Don't read it like that. Drop your voice an octave or two. Slloooowww dowwwn... Form a mental image of someone you dislike incurring the wrath of a dozen rabid weasels. Now say it out loud a few times. Fun, eh? This term evolved to express the keen sense of "I'm glad that that didn't just happen to me" that so often accompanies video game playing and watching professional sports. Someone not get out of his foxhole when the plasma grenade got in? Epic fail. Break left instead of right and take a heat-seeking missile right through the cockpit? Epic fail. Throw a Hail Mary, have it picked off and run back for a touchdown? Epic fail. Pitch four consecutive balls to someone with a batting average lower than Katie Couric's IQ? Epic fail. But I suspect that epic fail is more widely applicable than just the realms of gaming and sport spectating. The first possibility that comes to mind is my own field of debate. I can just imagine the cross-ex:

Neg: So you agree that human rights can conflict with one another?

Aff: Sometimes, yes.

Neg: How do you know which ones to uphold?

Aff: Well, I guess it varies by the case...

Neg: EPIC FAIL! EPIC FAAAIIIILLLLLL!

(Dull thump as affirmative flowpad and notebook hit the floor. Sharp thump as affirmative debater collapses on top of them, quivering and wondering what just happened.)

Funny, yes, but it got me thinking about what an "epic fail" really is in debate. Looking at my flows from last tournament, I noticed something interesting. I only ever lost to one opponent, and she consistently addressed all the points as they were actually presented. Most of the debaters I defeated tended to use the straw man logical fallacy; they countered an argument that had not actually been made. This is annoying, mainly because of how common it is both inside and outside debate rounds. Real example from today's news:

Pundit 1: How does raising taxes help the economy?

Pundit 2: Ronald Reagan both raised and lowered taxes!

Fascinating factoid, Pundit 2, but also entirely irrelevant to the question. Note that P2 neatly sidestepped the question by implying that the economic boom following the Reagan administration was due in part to tax increases, but he does not address the fact that taxes decreased on the whole. He never actually gave an answer to the question. Here is an even better example:

Me: Why should we label semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons" and ban them when they definitionally are not "assault weapons" and are used in almost no gun crime?

Angry Liberal: Guns are dangerous and assault weapons are even worse because they spray entire rooms with bullets!

Okay, three things here. One: AL made a flat statement (guns are dangerous) which is not really on point and is unsupported. Two: AL reused the term "assault weapons" (an extremely emotive phrase) which is not accurate and does not refer to the guns under discussion. Three: AL placed the stigma on the guns ("they spray") instead of the criminals. Suddenly the firearms are the whole problem, not the people who misuse them.

Note also a punctuation mark used in both examples: "!" This little mark is usually an indicator that someone is either lying to you or speaking irrationally. Solid argumentation does not need an exclamation point. Solid argumentation does not need an exclamation point! Notice the difference? The second statement sounds almost shrill. Gone is coldly incisive logic and rearing in its stead is the flare of human emotion. Most epic fails in argumentation are made quite spectacularly. Appeals to emotion tend to accompany the burning of straw men.

So, epic fails can be identified by attention to language and the sudden presence of inappropriate emotional intensity. How do you counter them? You can't. Sorry. Someone who makes an argument like one of the examples has already decided to Not Agree With You Ever Even If Hell Freezes Over Twice And The Cubs Win the World Series and nothing you do or say will sway them. Like we say in debate, "Don't try to persuade to other side. Persuade the judge." You cannot effectively hold a discussion with someone willing to resort to logical fallacies (perhaps even subconsciously) because they are both opposition and judge. Epic fail. Suddenly it's not quite as amusing. But this post is not all gloom. Most discussions do not happen in a vacuum. Usually there are observers, even ones sitting on the proverbial fence about an issue. Be alert for lapses in logic and argumentation and gently but clearly exploit them when they occur. Be a source of truth. Above all, please do not give in the urge to commit epic fails in your own speech and conduct. I see nigh as many errors on my side of the issues as on the other side. If enough people conduct ourselves according the standards of ethical debate, I wonder what we could accomplish. I wonder how much we could change and actually change for the better. Think about it. Maybe check out a book on logic and persuasion from the library. And don't play Halo against Xbox nerds unless you know how. My ear is still sore from all the "EPIC FAILs" I received.