Is this a good type of argument?

[BRG253]

Suppose I were to create a fictional internet persona who argues in favor of big government. I would make statements containing glaring contradictions in an attempt to expose the philosophical errors committed by statists. Basically, the goal would be to make the left look as stupid as possible without giving myself up and coming off as a troll. Is this a valid approach, or is it really just trolling?

[OCSL]

I think a more pertinent question would be "Are you trolling"?

Assuming you are serious (which I doubt), this is an idea that is irrational. Both the left and the right do a good enough job of making glaring contradictions without your help. Besides you can surely come up with a better way to spend your time.

[Dante]

People are really good at not seeing contradictions in views which they like, no matter how glaringly obvious those contradictions are.

[2046]

I think sarcasm and satire is a legitimate way to expose key points of your opponent's argument. For example, there was a thread on a different forum discussing the supposed "internet kill switch" bill which would give Obama the power to shut down the internet in case of crisis. As people took different sides, I posted something to the effect of "yes, shut it down now!" mocking the supporters, displaying all sorts of fallacies openly, "people spend too much time sitting around on the internet, get them up into public service to help the economy, preferably digging ditches and filling them in," "Obama told us (in his recent commencement speech) that there's just too much information out there becoming a distraction, a diversion, i.e. you can learn things that the government needs you not to think about" etc.

Maybe this isn't exactly what you had in mind, but in the end I don't know if this is all that effective. The people reading it must at some point think for themselves, to see the causal connections in their minds, to know with certainty themselves the reasons why something is evil or good. What Dante says is true, the actual people supporting statism will not care about their contradictions. You are essentially making fun of people who are already impotent and depend solely on the default of the majority of non-thinkers who empower them. Is this an effective way to get people thinking about something? Good question. I think it perhaps could be by clearly elucidating the effects of something evil in an obvious way.

[Hairnet]

I think you are going to just make peopel upset not show them the error of their ways. The will most likely rationalize you satire as you being strawmanned. After all we have steven colbert doing essentially what you are thinking about. The point of satire is to make something absurd. Since that is your goal right off that bat, I don't think you can treat anyone's position fairly.