“Fisking” is the process of deconstructing and contradicting an argument one line or point at a time, usually done online with sarcasm and profanity. It originated from American conservatives rebutting British journalist Robert Fisk’s articles. The process involves deconstructing an argument and making a counterargument for each point, often with personal attacks and name-calling. While criticized for its crass approach, defenders suggest it is a form of debate and catharsis.
Fisking is a process by which an argument is deconstructed and contradicted one line or point at a time, rather than addressed in its entirety. This particular term usually refers to this process that is done over the Internet, usually through an Internet blog, forum, or bulletin board. When done online, there is usually a great deal of sarcasm, vitriol, and profanity included in the process of deconstructing and contrasting the subject. Disqualification may be seen by some as a poor form of argument, although many find it an effective means of conveying both derision and disagreement.
The term “fisking” comes from a famous award-winning British journalist named Robert Fisk, whose articles have often been targeted by these kinds of rebuttals. While these early forms of argument were typically made by American conservatives, who disagreed with Fisk’s points and ideas, it has since expanded far beyond his initial political background. Fisking can be used by anyone to argue against any kind of opinion or argument made, although it is usually done over the internet, which features an ideal format for line-by-line rebuttal. This type of rebuttal seeks to destroy the individual points made in an argument, acting to counter the entirety of the argument without ever having to address the overall message of it.
One of the main aspects of disqualification is the use of deconstruction to deconstruct an argument and make a counterargument or rebuttal for each point. This can be done on a line-by-line basis, although it is often done for every paragraph or single point a person makes in their initial statement. The Internet provides a perfect environment for this type of argument, allowing a person to quote and repost the original claim, divided into sections, and then add comments or rebuttals after each section. While this process is similar to some methods used in organized debate, fraud is also characterized by an overt and pronounced level of hostility.
The persecution usually involves personal attacks on the author or speaker of a statement and the use of profanity and name calling are often accepted as legitimate counterpoints in this process. This has led to a fair amount of criticism of the process from many individuals who feel that it is ultimately a juvenile or minor form of argument for its crass approach to debate. Those who defend Fisking, however, suggest that it is equal parts debate and catharsis, allowing a person to vent their frustrations with both the speaker and the argument they made.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
