Conservapedia:DeMyer's Laws

Look Ken, you're famous!

Trus me Conservapedia

Introduction

Newcomer's Guide What is going on?

Commentary

Best of Conservapedia Blatant plagiarism Differences with Wikipedia Hijacked articles "SDG" "TZB" "Fab Five" Sysops Timeline CP in the media

In-depth analysis

Active users Illustrated guide

Fun

Article Matrix Greatest Insights Parthian Shots v - t - e

This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today. Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse. Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims, authoritarianism, and deceit. For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the Best of RationalWiki.

DeMyer's Laws are a collection of internet laws based on the debating style of Ken DeMyer and are named in his honour.

The laws

DeMyer's Zeroth Law of Internet Debating states:

“”If you are Ken DeMyer, Kdbuffalo, Newton, GiuocoPiano, Conservative, or another of Kenneth DeMyer's aliases, the debate will eventually reach a state where you violate one of the internet laws and you are going to lose.

DeMyer's First Law of Internet Debating states:

“”Anyone who brings Young Earth Creationism into an argument — that is not about creation, the origins of life, or the age of Earth — requires no further serious consideration and is deemed to have lost the argument.

DeMyer's Second Law of Internet Debating states:

“”Anyone who posts an argument on the internet that mainly consists of the quotations of other people can be very safely ignored and is deemed to have lost the argument before it has begun.

DeMyer's Third Law of Internet Debating states:

“”Anyone who posts a picture with a caption that does anything other than describe the picture is deemed to have already lost on the point they were trying to make and it can be ignored.

DeMyer's Fourth Law of Internet Debating states:

“”Anyone who resorts to answering and "best answering" their own questions on Yahoo! Answers, in order to win their argument, is deemed to have lost the argument before it has begun and can be ignored.

DeMyer's Fifth Law of Internet Debating states:

“”Anyone who writes an essay that consists mostly of incoherent babbling and pictures of dogs, bullfights, strange figures, and/or pictures of Adolf Hitler screaming into a microphone is clearly insane, can safely be ignored, and should never be taken seriously.

DeMyer's Sixth Law of Internet Debating states:

“”Anyone who claims victory in a debate after perma-banning their opponent (thus rendering said opponent unable to defend themselves or their argument) can be ignored.

DeMyer's Seventh Law of Internet Debating states:

“”Anyone who makes arbitrary, bogus demands before a debate (e.g. asking random pastors to take part, demanding that massive amounts of money be donated to a faith-based charity, etc.) and then sets things up so that said challenger will end up refusing to have the debate no matter what the opponent does is deemed to have lost the debate before it has begun, and can safely be ignored.

In a nutshell

In short, pretty much anyone who uses any of the truly atrocious debating practices that are frequently used by Ken

can be safely assumed to have lost the debate.

Public approbation

Amazingly enough, some outside RationalWiki have noticed these, including the popular UK morning commuter fishwrap Metro.

Footnotes

Articles on RationalWiki about Eponymous laws

v - t - e

  Rove's Law  -  Murphy's Law  -  Internet law  -  Danth's Law  -  Nazi analogies  -  Gore's Law  -  Haggard's Law  -  Haig's Law  -  List of Poe's Law examples  -  Feminist internet laws  -  Badger's Law  -  Whale.to  -  Poe's Law  -  Littlewood's law  -  PIDOOMA  -  Borel's Law  -  Rosenblum's First Law of Chocolate  -  波尔法则  -  Wet van Poe  -  Loi de Poe