Which of these two is a more annoying kind of person to debate with?

[Boojatta]

[BlooInBloo]

1. An idiot.

[greyl]

2. How can we ever really be sure about the difference between 1 & 2?

Online, I mean.

[Boojatta]

5. If you need to be sure which it is before you can get annoyed...

then you experience less annoyance. And that's a good thing. :-)

[ColbertWatcher]

3. "Playing devil's advocate" is not a mind game, but getting emotional during a debate is.

Believing one is right despite evidence to the contrary is pure emotional bullshit.

It also happens to be what the GOP does all the time.

[Boojatta]

4. Okay. You added the "despite evidence to the contrary" part.

[greyl]

6. "Believing one is right despite evidence to the contrary"

That's when you call "Invincible Ignorance" and win the point.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. Anyone arguing against the GOP wins. n/t

[bean fidhleir]

7. The anti-science people who feel that the intensity of their belief creates truth.

They're today's witch-burners, who want to make their nightmares the basis of law.

[Boojatta]

9. Kick to elicit more votes and more comments

[Boojatta]

10. Kick

[LanternWaste]

11. I'd vote for the 'Contrarian'

I'd vote for the 'Contrarian'-- an distant cousin of the Devil's Advocate, who takes the opposition side not out of a desire for a balanced discussion, but simply out of a desire to advertise how clever he believes himself to be.