Arguing on the internet
An image circulating the internet since at least 100 years ago that nubile trolls will retort in an argument by posting it as if it's a trump card that no one can counter. An especially lulz-worthy tactic is to point out that the image itself is an argument posted on the internets, then spend the next ten minutes pointing out that they've admitted to being retarded. A dangerous gambit, as it's gay as fuck, and if the other person doesn't take the bait, you're left with egg on your face.
Before "The Internets Are Serious Fucking Business." became the way to depict internet arguments and drama, this was the argument winning image, however it was far less-lulzy.
As for trolls, however, flamewars and arguments are prime targets for trolling, so make sure to get in there and reap the lulz. One suggestion is to state a third opinion followed by "both of you are fucking cocks and your opinions are retarded. GO KILL YOURSELVES." OR you could say something random. For instance, if two n00bs are arguing about Halo, tell them that Metal Gear Solid is the best. Or tell them that you like Sonic. For the latter, proceed to post shitty Sonic Deviantart and/or furry pr0n for maximum lulz.
Why internet arguments are futile
1. You have no idea who you are arguing with. You could be arguing with a troll or a 12-year-old boy. In either case there is no way to win and there is no point to winning. The troll will continue trolling and the boy will continue his immaturity. It is proven that there is no way to make a person "grow up".
2. There is no point even if you do manage to convince someone on the internet that you are right. For example, if you convince someone that global warming is true, or is false, you haven't changed anything. That person is not about to give you 10 dollars for changing his opinion. Certainly, you won't have made a dent in the environmentalist population, which numbers in the tens of millions. If people were rational, then they would have been convinced by the countless numbers of TV programmes and internet articles that address this issue. They could look for the evidence themselves.
3. They do not want to be convinced. Ask yourself why are you arguing? If the other person truly wishes to know the truth about global warming or anything else, he would go look for the truth himself by searching for it on google or going to a library. The reason for the argument is that he doesn't want to be convinced, he wants to convince YOU.
- multiproductions: Other singer is better.
- XgamerunlimitedX: no that bitch annette is shit compared to tarja ur a fucking idiot and u should learn wtf ur taking about u cunt
- multiproductions: Sure, learn to spell, idiot.
- XgamerunlimitedX: *rants about how he's better educated than Heron and doesn't have to spell well for a fuck like him*
- multiproductions: I'm sure that's it. Get the fuck off my YouTube and never come back, thanks.
- XgamerunlimitedX: What exactly of Youtube do "you" own?
- multiproductions: Oh, good counter, taking a literal strike at my sarcastic claim to YouTube. You're the argumentative equivalent of the average American four year old. Ironically, I definitely owned you on YouTube.
- AaronLMM: Would both of you FUCK up.
- XgamerunlimitedX: Wow how intelligent, I am glad I am not American if people like you live there.
- XgamerunlimitedX: Aaron please stop trying to be the voice of reason there is clearly no reasoning with this loser.
- omnigear341: I thought people usually go to a song to listen to it; not argue.
- XgamerunlimitedX: I am sorry I am not usally argumentative but this person is really annoying me, please enjoy the music.
- omnigear341: Don't play his/her game.
- omnigear341: What was it about anyways?
- XgamerunlimitedX: Well he thinks annette is better than Tarja, I disagreed with him and he continued to insult my intelligence and he came across as an insipid unscruptulus creep so I had no choice but to retaliate.
- multiproductions: rofl
Another Shorter Example with Lots of *These*
- Poster 1: *states innocent opinion*
- Poster 2: *states offensive counter-opinion with many "fuck"'s, "suck"'s, "shit"'s, and "you're"'s*
- Poster 1: *supports opinion possibly with similar profanity*
- Poster 2: *supports counter-opinion possibly with similar profanity*
- Poster 1: *supports opinion possibly with similar profanity in a longer post*
- Poster 2: *supports counter-opinion possibly with similar profanity in a longer post*
- Poster 1: *supports opinion possibly with similar profanity in a LONGER post*
- Poster 2: *supports counter-opinion possibly with similar profanity in a LONGER post*
This goes on for a LOT longer. Notice that noone won?