For those unaware, a few years back a lady named Anita Sarkeesian put out a handful of 10-minute videos criticizing the way video games portray women. Personally, I found some of her points to be valid while others to be silly -- but at the end of the day, it was an important topic and the videos weren't hurting anyone by existing. Others didn't see it that way, and so a documentary was created to apparently blow open the wide conspiracy surrounding these videos. It was called "The Sarkeesian Effect," and was -- I shit you not -- two hours and 36 minutes long.

IMDB

That's money and months of manpower devoted to something that no reasonable human would ever sit through ... Which is probably why it premiered to whopping nine people and was unknown to the majority of those reading this. Because unless your last name is Plinkett and you're talking about some popular piece of culture, there's no fucking way you can ask for three hours of someone else's life to rant about anything. I don't care how right you are; it's the equivalent of performing six hours of slam poetry outside a Denny's because the coffee was cold.

To be super clear: You absolutely should never bring up "fallacies" when debating someone. And you especially should never link them to some kind of shortcut page defining their logical error. Aside from how immediately enraging that is, this is the equivalent of whipping out a copy of The Art Of Seduction while talking to a girl at the bar. It's like screaming "Activate trap door!" while performing a magic trick.

davidf/iStock"Abra-ka-dabra-FLOWERS UP MY SLEEVE!"

When someone online tells me I'm using a "strawman fallacy" or a "circular argument," I instantly assume that person is:

1) Extremely new at arguing

2) Hilarious

The whole point of fallacies is to have extra tools to internally reference when debating someone. Instead of saying "Aha! I've detected a fallacy!" you're supposed to be keeping that shit to yourself until you can leverage your words against theirs. Simply screaming "fallacy" doesn't give you an edge any more than screaming "spin kick" makes you a better fighter. There's even a fallacy specifically about this. It's called the "fallacy fallacy," and it points out that pointing out fallacies as an end-all argument is in itself a fallacy, which I guess makes my linking to it a fallacy fallacy fallacy ... which gives you an idea of what a clown hole this all is. And speaking of repetitive garbage ...

By all means, if your goal is to make yourself feel better by blowing a rage wad all over some anonymous rando, then go bananas. But don't for a second think your trite little exclamation is making a dent in the conversation. By adapting the lingo of the mob, you're far more likely to make people further affirm their own beliefs.

But even worse than that, using a put-down popularized by one specific cluster of people doesn't only pigeonhole the person you're trying to insult; it also pigeonholes you. If someone was trying to convince me of some injustice and in their argument used the words "shill" or "sheeple," my stupid human brain would automatically start associating them with the hogwash 9/11 truther movement. Similarly, if I read the word "cuck," I automatically doubt the validity of every word after.

homasd007/iStockUnless you're a chicken. That would be amazing.

Being unique in the way you speak goes a long way to convince someone you're not another, well, sheeple. And if you've put independent thought into your personal convictions, don't you want to convey it as independently and while avoiding the same tired insults? Because I'm not saying you can't insult other people ... just that you need to be more creative when you do. Don't call the next angry liberal an "SJW." Instead, go with "offense connoisseur" or "turtleneck colon-dweller." Not all conservatives have to be "rednecks" or "Nazis" either. You can go with "reverse-Lincoln" or "Hitler's street team" instead. The only limit here is your imagination and empathy.

Almost immediately, this click-baity piece was met with equally click-baity responses from people attacking conservatives for the same thing:

Huffington PostIt ended up being a story about a classroom full of ghosts.

If you don't remember these headlines, don't feel bad, because they're all terrible and not worthy of remembrance. And the reason for this has nothing to do with the point being made, but rather how they are making it. Specifically, they are taking a broad problem and blaming it for their personal situation, making their entire point dependent on the reader's view of their character. In other words, a professor saying that a group of students "terrifies" him because of PC culture can be instantly brushed off with "Well, maybe you're just not a very good professor."

It doesn't matter how right or wrong you are; taking a personal problem and trying to turn it into a societal observation comes off like a deflection. It's like blaming "diversity" for a failed job interview that you showed up to in jean shorts. I'm not saying you can't talk about it, but you absolutely shouldn't start with it. Because if you do, shit like this will happen:

inc.comShe gave the CEO a terrible Yelp review.

"Yelp girl" wrote an open letter to her CEO saying that she can't afford to live with her current salary. Instead of having a conversation about wages, the internet responded by trolling through her social media accounts to find any and all evidence of her being careless with money. It didn't matter if she had a good point or not, because everyone was busy arguing over whether or not she was a "spoiled millennial."

The vastness of the internet has given everyone the ability to "keep score" of every news event that affirms their bias. When Michael Brown was shot, a large chunk of the internet wasted days debating whether he stole cigars, as if that detail would make or break the Black Lives Matter movement. Whenever a spree shooting occurs, the first thing people want to know is what color the killer was. Every time an anti-gay politician gets outed, or a Democrat says something stupid about guns, or a Muslim or Christian does something terrible in the name of religion, people tally it like a fucked-up game of Rummy. But if you truly want to influence people on the internet, you shouldn't even have a reason to keep score in the first place ...

Hey, notice how I didn't justify my view by bashing Star Wars? Instead I talked about what Trek had to offer, and not how terrible Lucas is or how R2-D2 looks like a rusty buttplug. The reason I did this has nothing to do with respecting Star Wars fans (although they are nice people), but rather with how spending all your breath talking about the opposition is the same as letting it dominate the discussion. Here's another, somewhat topical example:

Adweek.con

MotherJones.com

MotherJones.comWe get it. You don't like the guy.

Hillary Clinton's very first campaign ad for the general election was about Trump. During the entirely of the election, all we heard about (both negatively and positively) was "Get a load of this Trump guy." Even one of her campaign slogans had Trump's name in it.

HillaryClinton.comSee if you can spot it.

Meanwhile, I don't think the average American had any idea what her specific policies where. Instead of talking about fixing manufacturing or coal jobs, she flooded working-class states with ads about all the terrible things Trump said and did. And so Clinton helped make the entire damn election all about Trump.

The White HouseCan you guess how that went?

The internet falls into this trap all the damn time. You know why "Men's Rights Activists" are often seen as a joke? Because they won't shut the fuck up about how terrible feminists are. Sure, they could focus on the draft, or how men make up 93 percent of workplace fatalities, or highlight the many ways our culture panders to "manliness" and frowns upon male "weakness." And I don't doubt that many of them do talk about that. But go on any men's rights forum and you're far more likely to be greeted with a post about how terrible feminists are.

Reddit.comTop post on /r/feminism: the largest women's march ever.

Reddit.comTop post on /r/mensrights: the time one guy insulted /r/feminism.

I'm not saying there aren't feminists out there also pulling the same bullshit, but rather that their overall message tends to be way more focused on self-empowerment as opposed to bashing the opposite gender. Despite the stereotypes, or rather because of them, they've had decades to realize that it's not about keeping score of who is more "wronged." And if MRAs focused more on actually talking about their rights, I super-guarantee that feminists would listen. I know this because it used to happen all the time.

The New York TimesAlmost as if listening to each other gets shit done.

It comes down to this: If your advocacy is almost entirely based on insulting another group, it's not really advocacy, and you might border on being a hate group. Even if you use words like "pride" or "rights" in your name. And like that, I've managed to disparage Hillary Clinton, Star Wars fans, and Men's Rights Activists in the same article. That's gotta be worth some kind of prize.

And this is exactly what's wrong with Twitter. It's the social media equivalent of a no-handed hammer fight. No matter how important, every argument looks ridiculous due to the arbitrary character limit. It's objectively the worst place to express complex ideas, and yet it's currently the primary medium for political discourse. We all realize how insane that is, right?

Donald J Trump/TwitterWe may never know whether D stood for "Defense" or "D-Money Trump."

Look, I'm not saying I've never argued with someone on Twitter, or that I'm going to stop anytime soon. But like chewing your nails or getting drunk at the airport, a bad habit looks bad no matter how good it feels. Look what happens when I click on a random Trump tweet and scroll down to people's comments:

TwitterTo be fair, though, libtards are the worst.

That's five people -- presumably adults -- "discussing" the current healthcare situation. Literally none of them come off as intelligent or even coherent, and ultimately their tweets will serve no greater purpose beyond adding to the hostile static of the internet. If I could delete them with a single keystroke, the slight breeze my of my finger would be 100x more influential than the content I was eliminating. These tweets are a cat fart in a hurricane, and yet, for some reason, they exist. Why? Is it so those "Liberal Tears Mug" scam-bots can make an easy buck?

TwitterIt's like they don't even care about their sodium intake.

I didn't cherry-pick an especially dumb sample size; this is the case for like 99.99 percent of Twitter arguments. And if you haven't already noticed, a lot of the terrible techniques I've mentioned today are easily cultivated by Twitter. Buzzwords, simplistic hate, using "fallacies" ... these all fit easily into 140 stupid characters.

Ultimately, the question you have to ask yourself is this: "Am I trying to truly make an intelligent point, or just blowing off steam?". If the answer is the latter, then by all means go hog-wild on Twitter. Have a blast! Use repetitive buzzword phrases. Peddle hate based on single anecdotes. Be a fucking monster. But don't come crying to me when you accidentally wind up president some day.

Follow Dave on Twitter, even though he just got finished insulting that thing.

Join Jack O'Brien and Cracked staffers Carmen Angelica, Alex Schmidt, Michael Swaim, plus comedian Blake Wexler for a retelling of history's biggest moments you didn't realize everyone was drunk for. Get your tickets here.

Also check out The Cheater's Guide to Winning Online Arguments and 5 Common Argument Tactics That Need To Die.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel, and check out Congress Repeals OBAMACARE, Internet Puts Up FAKE NEWS (And More News From This Week), and other videos you won't see on the site!

Follow us on Facebook, and let's be best friends forever.