This is not intended to reference any particular debate - just throwing this out here for people to read, ignore, and then me to refer to it 500 times, and people still ignore it anyway.

What follows is just advice I got from everyone else. None of this is something I woke up with. And frankly, if I were so inclined, I could write an entire book on all of the debating principles and observations I've noticed IRL and in BZP lands. More people have opinions on debate than actually anything else. Whenever people argue about something, they argue about the fact that they are arguing about something, all of which they see as pointless anyway because their opponent is obviously wrong.

How to tell that you're in a debate

Not all BZPower conversation is a debate. In fact, I would argue (I'm debating now, haha) that at least 60% of posts aren't debates. (Especially considering that the creative forums aren't really prone to debate, and that's half the board. )

1) Long posts with lots of quotes. Not always the case, but if someone is posting a long dissertation and responding to everything you've said, you're probably in a debate.

2) Multiple posters that are of one opinion or another. If there are five posters who take one opinion, and two posters who take another opinion, and they are quoting each other, it's a debate.

3) Objections. (see below) If someone posts something that disagrees with or objects to what someone else said, it is a debate. However, 3 can happen without 1 and 2 ever occurring, and most of 3s tend to dissolve very quickly, because they are based on some sort of easily solved information discrepancy.

4) Flames or insults. Usually these, in conjunction with one and two, are symptoms of a debate gone wrong.

Causes of debate (or just talking)

1) Plain question. The most common place to find this is in a topic start post. It's just asking for information. "What is the geography of Voya Nui?" "Where can I download MNOG?" "What is your favorite Toa?"

Plain questions can cause debates. "Which of these masks would you like to be canon?" is a plain question. Don't confuse a plain question for an objection just because you have an objection to it. Asking for information is not wrong, even if it's your preference.

Note that answers to plain questions can be preferences, or they can be actual facts/truth. The geography of Voya Nui is a horseshoe desert on a cord, you can download MNOG on the BioMediaProject and the Wayback Machine and play it on the Templar website. These are facts. Asking what my favorite Toa is asking for my preference for Toa; asking for which mask I would like is still a preference - but it's also still information.

Also, if I'm in the realm of preference, any answer I give to a plain question will be correct. If I say "I don't prefer any particular Toa" to the first question, it's a valid answer, just as answering the second question with "none of them" would also be correct.

Plain questions come in two types: ones that ask for factual information and ones that ask for preferences/opinions/taste. For the first, there is only one right answer that is factually correct (I may not know the answer, but there's still only one). For the second, I can select any answer that I want to.

2) Objections. Objections are negative responses to an assertion of fact. You need an objection for a debate to happen. Answers to plain questions can lead to objections, but in and of themselves they won't start the arrows flying.

Person 1: Tahu 2015 is purple.

Person 2: Tahu 2015 is red and gold. Are you color-blind?

Notice that statement 1 appears to be a statement of fact to person 1. Person 1 appears to genuinely believe that Tahu 2015 is purple. We would conclude that he does (especially if he wrote like 5 posts to argue his case).

Person 2, on the other hand, knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Tahu 2015 is red and gold. Note that he also is being rather nice to Person 1 by pointing out that Tahu 2015 is, in fact, red and gold. Otherwise Person 1 may walk around school with his "purple" set and have to listen to all the students laughing at him. Person 2 is actually saving Person 1 a lot of future embarrassment.

Now Person 1 can respond to Person 2 like this:

Person 1: Yeah, I've been color-blind since birth, and so that set looks purple to me. Sorry, I got confused.

This is a concession of defeat. Person 1 knows that Person 2 has evidence for his position, so he backs down.

OR

Person 1: I'm not sure. It still looks purple to me.

This is admitting that Person 1 doesn't know whether Person 2 is correct or not. Person 2, however, could pull out a chronometer to support his position (use color numbers), or take Person 2 to a doctor to support his theory that Person 2 is color-blind. If Person 2 produced more information, Person 1 might still agree.

However, Person 1 has not conceded defeat. In the event that more evidence surfaces for his position, his original assertion may still be correct. (Of course, we all know he's wrong, but for the sake of example. )

(By the way, walking away from the debate to get the reference source behind your opinion would count as this. It's shifting the authority of correctness and the burden of proof off of your hide and on to them - you didn't know, but they did, and they are the authority.)

This is actually the least common response to an objection, mostly because most people don't see it as an option. But it's actually usually the BEST response, since it avoids the humiliation of concession and the following option, which is even more humiliating:

OR

Person 1: How can you say that? It's purple. I mean, Lego has been including more purple in sets for years, so it only makes sense that they would make Tahu purple now. Red is sooo outdated.

Which would be type 3, a Smoke Screen. I'll deal with that first, then come back to the objections.

3) Smoke Screen

VERY IMPORTANT! Most of us believe that we don't write smoke screens, that our debate opponents are writing them. Not always the case. This is not to say that I'm suddenly innocent. I have written more smoke screens (read: Bachelor of Science degrees ) on this website than I think anyone has. (Go ahead and agree. You know you want to. )

A Smoke Screen is a situation where you want something to be true that isn't.

Read that sentence one more time. Note I couched it in second person to aim at the reader. That's because EVERYONE wants things to be true that aren't. You would love to have those Bionicle 2015 sets right now instead of having to wait until January.

A Smoke Screen is a situation where your debate opponent is denying the truth, and is throwing objection after objection at you to shield themselves from the truth you are presenting.

Does that sound familiar? Your opponent just won't listen to reason, even when they are clearly doing something bad, are obviously wrong, or they just don't get it. It's easy to believe the sentence I've just described.

But interestingly enough, it's more difficult to believe the opposite.

A Smoke Screen is a situation where you are denying the truth, and you are throwing objection after objection at your opponent to shield yourself from the truth they are presenting.

The problem becomes, if you're in a debate where smoke screens are happening, the person in the right, who is in the right, will always have objections to the smoke screen objections, since those will always be false. Therefore it can be difficult to tell if the person is making a logical objection to a false statement, or if the other person is. Even more infuriating, a person can smoke screen one point in a debate while being logically objecting to another screen the other person has. Or neither person can have the truth, instead have two different preferences for two different lies, and argue with each other...forever. When in doubt, evaluate everything everyone's saying by the yardstick of truth and falsehood. At least, the best that you can. That's the only real way to avoid error.

With that said, here's some smoke screen rules of thumb:

1) Flames and insults are always smoke screens. Who a person is has nothing to do with whether they are right in a particular instance. Keep in mind that a person who has studied something for years should be trusted over the word of a novice generally. But it is best to evaluate using the truth/falsehood yardstick anyway, on the off chance that the expert had an off day, or wasn't up on the newest thing, etc.

But insulting people never proves any point, so it's always a smoke screen. Always.

2) Smoke Screens are always preference-based, but all preferences expressed are NOT smoke screens.

Sometimes only preference matters on a subject. For example, in the favorite Toa argument, saying that "I like Kopaka better than Tahu." is not a smoke screen - that's just information. Saying that "Kopaka is better than Tahu because of *insert evidence here* is STILL a preference. But if I say that all the people that like Tahu are stupid because Kopaka is obviously better, then that is a smoke screen.

3) Smoke Screens always include an assertion that something is true is not. Saying that "this preference exists, and is valid because it does" is NOT a smoke screen - unless the preference actually DOESN'T exist. But you'd have to prove that NOBODY ever held that preference for that ever, which is very unlikely. Especially if the person who holds that preference is the person you are debating!

Please note this fundamental truth: All preferences should not be catered to if it doesn't make sense. But if it is possible to cater to a wider variety of preferences WITHOUT violating logic, then it should be done. Expressing a desire/preference ISN'T a smoke screen; claiming that your preference is supported by logic even though it isn't, as an excuse to ignore everyone else's preference, IS.

Smoke Screens and shoving your preference down other people's throats walk hand in hand - but they aren't always synonymous. Sometimes you just want that person to stop bothering your preferences and stirring them up.

4) Long posts CAN indicate smoke screens. The crowning evidence of smoke screens - a long trail of meaningless objections - breeds long posts like wildfire. But keep in mind that the objections to the smoke screen can run as long as the screen itself. Also even logic-on-logic debates can have long posts, especially if one of the parties is quoting a reference source to back themselves up.

GENERAL DEBATE ADVICE (here's the real deal)

1. How to know that you're writing a smoke screen (and avoid it):

     A. Look for contradictions. If you write one thing in one post and write something else in another post that contradicts what you just said, you're writing a smoke screen.

      B. If you feel you're not thinking, or what you're saying doesn't make any sense at all. Know your limits - if you're not really reading your opponents' post(s), you need to take a break. If you think you're spouting nonsense, chances are you are.

     C. Know your yardsticks, and consult them when you get confused. In S&T, that's the Greg Dialogues, BS01, the LMB. For Bionicle 2015, that would be Bionicle.com, the Facebook page, etc. If the person presents a convincing argument, don't just flip opinions - consult the yardsticks, then agree.

     D. Ask yourself: "If this person answered all of the objections in this post to my satisfaction, would I change my opinion to match theirs? What I am I trying to accomplish with this statement?" If you're not open to what the other person has to say, then you are writing a smoke screen. This only applies if you're making objections, though.

      E. Watch out for anger, curse words, and insults you feel like writing. Anger doesn't always indicate a smoke screen, but it's the quickest way to one on the books. If you're so mad you can't think straight, you need to bleed off the negative emotions anyway - take a break from the debate. Anger is actually good when exposing smoke screens - sometimes it's easier to answer the question "Why am I angry?" than it is to answer "What do I prefer that isn't true?".

      F. Read over what you said before posting it. I find it useful to reread over my points after I type them out, to nuke any contradictions before they even get to the forum.

2. If you are writing a smoke screen, do not continue writing it. STOP. You need to evaluate to see what preference got you in the debate in the first place that is at odds with reality. Note that this does not mean your opponent is right. He or she could be just as wrong as you are. You are not conceding to your opponent, merely allowing yourself to realize that you want something that is at odds with the truth. Note that this can take time to come through. Sometimes going up and reading the your first post in the topic will help you see what is going on, and who responded to what. Other times you may need time to think it over. Consult your yardsticks for truth.

This doesn't mean that your preference is wrong - it means that it is blinding you to what is true. Fixing it is saying "I want X to be true, but it is NOT true, Y is true.". Fill in X and Y with the right answers.

Regardless, don't continue the debate until you know what the block is. Because if this opponent shoved this block in your face before, they will do it over and over again until you solve it. Continuing to write a smoke screen helps nobody, yourself included.

3. Avoid being distracted off of your main point. This happens to me more often than I care to admit. You write an post, someone objects, you object to their objection, they object to yours, and so on, until you are no longer talking about what the original post was about. Avoid objecting to objections without pointing out how they don't apply to your main point, which is nearly always the first post that started the chain of objections.

This can get tricky with long posts. Keep in mind how each of the points in your long post applies to the main point. If whatever objection doesn't apply to the point you're raising, you don't have to respond to it. Or if you care, just say that it doesn't apply and explain why. You can say that.

4. Try to figure out what your opponent's main point is before responding!

*ahem* I'll raise my hand for some of my worst failures on this. More often than not, they tell you right in the very first line of their first post in the topic. If that happens, you're lucky. If you don't know what the person is trying to get across, ask! Yes, do reread their post first to prevent them from having to repeat the obvious. If you do agree with their main point, say so! Say "I agree with you on X, but I don't think reasoning Y is valid to support it" or something like that. I just got out of a debate where someone actually agreed with someone on something, but because of how he worded his post, he gave the impression that he didn't. Happens way more often than I would like.

5. If you disagree with your opponent's main point, deal with that FIRST.

Explain why you disagree with your opponents' main point. Don't argue or bring in all the tiny micro-objections you have with all of their reasoning that extends from their main point unless it supports your argument against the main point.

Granted, I see less of micro-objection obsession these days. But I find it essential to quickly get to the bottom of why I disagree - the main point I want to make as an objection against the other mains that I disagree with.

6. Check the information that you're using. Be careful, because people use different ways to tell what is true and right. If you can't agree on what is true and right in a particular subject, you probably won't ever agree on anything, and expecting them to agree doesn't work.

This is actually a principle for real-life debate, but sometimes useful on here. Most of us agree that information from Lego is a good measuring rod for what Bionicle is, and what's canon, etc. That's the "truth" we use to back up our logic.

In real life, there are sharp disagreements on what information is true, reliable, and so on. If your opponent is citing information that you consider unreliable, say so. You may need to provide more information to back your assertion that it is, and perhaps provide a case that your information is reliable.

For BZPower debate, many of the IRL reference sources that one could use for IRL-related debates are blocked from use for whatever reason. I advise against taking a position that you can't back up. I've done this a few times as well - and it just doesn't work. I long for the days when BZPower left the IRL debates to the IRL.

For 90% of those debates, people will never agree.

7. Finding that your opponent has a smoke screen is the LAST thing you check. Instead of the first thing you assume. Upon being objected to, check the reference source you got it from in the first place, check for errors and possible errors in your own thinking and note any preferences that might be clouding your thinking. If the debate drags long, check yourself for smoke screens. Point out logical errors in your opponents' thinking. Pick their logic apart for at least a little bit.

Because your opponent having a smoke screen is the absolute worst case scenario in a debate, because it is very difficult for you to do anything for them or for yourself. Even you being wrong is better. Sure, you've got mud on your face now, but at least you've learned something. If there was a logical error, you've fixed it - if there was better information, you've found it, if there was a smoke screen, you can burn it away. At least you know it was just you, and you have a very good chance if you don't know it already of figuring it out.

If your opponent has a logic error, you've probably corrected it. You're probably trying not to break out in smug gloating as you sail on to the next debate - or if you're less inclined to ego, happy to have bettered someone's existence.

But if you do have reason after all of that to believe that your opponent does have a screen, look for the signs A-E in your opponent. If you do see them, the best thing you can do is to illuminate the preference that is blocking them from realizing the facts. But the fact of the matter is, most people find it incredibly insulting that a preference is holding them back from realizing the truth. They will call you names and insult you up and down, and fire off more and more senseless objections. It's gotten so much that on controversial issues that have common preferential smoke screens that I feel the need to pre-burn them away and address them before I even get to the logic.

Worse, people's preferences can be winding and complex. It strikes me as a very difficult procedure to name the correct preference that could be blinding a person from the truth. If I don't know the exact preference, it's better to not even try to name it. It is very delicate process, that even if done correctly may not work - and if done wrong, will only hurt the person involved. I have spent days and years of my life arguing with particularly stubborn people as I have made bumbling guesses at the correct preference behind a smoke screen. This, while I heard through one desperate objection after another mortal fear that I could be right. Yes, I have scared people. But fear is not my objective, and as such I regard it as a failing. Every time I have struck fear of my logic into someone, I have lost a friend. I'd take being wrong over that any day, but there's no compromising the truth. It is the worst.

This is way I say the truth is painful. In this situation, it may be better just to back off, concede whatever points you can, and try to smooth things over. Maybe someday their preferences will change and the truth will become plain to them. In any case, if the person is not truly listening to you, there is little point in cluttering the forum with more words.

And that's all I've got. It's long, but it's really hard to address this complex matter (since people are by nature complex) in a small amount of words.