Thread by @ShefVaidya

#Thread.
Here is a crash course in how NOT to argue, demonstrated by @brijeshkalappa, who claims to be a SC lawyer. Yesterday, I asked him a very simple question, does he, as a Kodava, support Tipu Sultan’s tyranny and genocide of the Kodavas and think of him as a hero?

Instead of answering a direct question, first Brijesh tried deflection, not answering d question asked, but saying something related, That he advised @siddaramaiah to not hold the Tipu event in Kodagu as it would ‘anger locals’. Note, Brijesh has not said the event angered HIM!

Next, he moved on to the biggest tool in the Congress #toolkit. Whataboutery, or Tu quoque ("you too"! Instead of answering my direct question, he dragged in BJP leaders and asked me, ‘but but but, why did THEY not do something’? Again, I asked the question, again he ignored it.

Next tool from #CongressToolKit, Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: inventing irrelevant facts to distract from the question at hand. When the BJP whataboutery didn’t work @brijeshkalappa moved to alleged historical ‘goodness’ of Tyrant Tipu.

When even that didn’t work, @brijeshkalappa did what he specialises in, Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the fallacy of attacking the person who has asked an question, rather than answering the question itself.

When that failed, @brijeshkalappa moved to yet another logical fallacy, shifting goalposts. Instead of answering what HE thinks of tyrant Tipu, Brijesh moved on to Melkote, of course no mention of the wholesale massacre of the Madyam Iyengars of Melkote by Brijesh’s hero, Tipu!

And finally, every congressman’s favourite fallacy, straw man! This fallacy involves putting words into the opponent’s mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made. This is how @brijeshkalappa did it!

Oh, and after that he kept on tweeting to empty space for a while :) pretending that he had ‘won’ the argument. If this is how all SC lawyers argue, I can totally understand some of the judgements we get. Now @brijeshkalappa pls answer the question, do you think Tipu was a hero?

This is how @brijeshkalappa ended :) Argumentum ad nauseam (argument by repitition). The fallacy of trying to prove something by saying the same thing again and again. And yeah, he still has NOT answered my one simple, direct question! Does he think mass murderer Tipu was a hero?