The below represents everything I have learnt from spectating and engaging in online discussions.
1) Have some funny insults tucked up your sleeve
In an ideal world the quality of an argument in a debate would depend only on the quality of one's points. However, as we all know, on an internet forum this fundamental backbone gets snapped in half and given to Fido to chew on.
In truth: the quality of your argument is directly proportional to the quality of your insults. You would be amazed at how well slinging a few insults at the opponent works. I have won many arguments this way over the years. For some reason which I haven't been able to fathom yet, people equate humour with intelligence. Onlookers will be magically fooled into thinking you must be a genius if you compare your opponent's mother to a beached whale.
2) Google is your friend.
Google is like the big brother you ran to as a kid when you were getting picked on by the schoolyard bully. When your chips are down, and you feel impending humiliation is your unescapable destiny, all is not lost, for I have seen many arguments turned around by simply flooding the opponent with a deluge of text pasted straight out of the first website google hits.
The key to this approach is to post more information than an average human can read in two years. Your opponent will attempt to wade through this data but will inevitably give up after the first three paragraphs. The opponent will then reply with no proper reference to your previous post, which you respond to with "What? Didn't you read my last post?"
3) Dish out a few latin phrases
Piso was the undisputed master at this. I remember when I first encountered him on Seeping: "Ad hominem folks, and he also went straight for a strawman but only after a couple of Argumentum ad Logicam's and an ipse dixit. Doesn't he realise that it's merely a Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc? Apart from knowing an ad hominem was attacking the person rather than the argument I admit now that I had no idea what he was talking about. That is the beauty of this approach. Most ordinary people will chuck their hands up in the air and wave the white flag, having been baffled into defeat. Other people will get so pissed off with having to look up each new latin phrase used against them that they are reduced to a quivering wreck, thus vulnerable to a second strike.
4) Change what you're arguing about half way through
I've so gone so far beyond the point of not finding this funny anymore that I'm actually in danger of going full circle and finding it funny again. What's crazy about this, is that it almost always works. The spectators don't notice since they're just reading the funny insults, and because you're flooding your opponent with so much irrelevant information he's unlikely to notice either.
Some people are more subtle than others, they change the debate from the inital argument only very slightly, but just enough so they are in a stronger position. Always keep an eye out for this happening. It's like having the rug pulled out from under your feet and landing flat on your arse.
5) Repeat yourself a few dozen times
An ideal online argument should be modelled on a puffer fish. What you need to do is inflate your side of the argument beyond recognition so it appears more scary than it actualy is. Really, all you might be saying is "No, I think Bush should be president", but by adopting the puffer fish strategy you will transform this simple statement into an unreadable ten page essay.
Also referred to as repitition or "padding", this approach has had many stuanch supporter over the years. It's not surprising they also happen to be the people who normally win, too.
6) Be arrogant and condescending
The first five steps act as a sophisticated shield, each representing a separate layer of defense. Occasionally you will be pitted against a foe who forgoes the established debating rules outlined above and actually desires a real discussion. This is where step six comes in.
By carefully combining arrogance with condescension you will hopefully annoy your opponent enough to diverge him away from the unimportant argument and towards tossing around some more of those humorous insults. You don't want to overdo it, that way you'll get banned halfway thrugh and everyone will miss out on your unique perspectives. Fortunately, only a very faint overtone of arrogance is required to get your opponent all riled up hence minimising the risk that you get banned.
Engage your mind:
Libertyhell
