Argumentative techniques which annoy you

Status
Not open for further replies.
Complete dismissal of an argument/proposition/subject/thing due to a person's failure or struggle to parse any flourishes provided by the presenter of said argument/proposition/subject/thing, or simply letting it distract them from the meat of the discussion, completely. Often inspires the person to erect straw men all over the place.

This largely happens during internet discussions, where seeds of anti-intellectualism seem to have taken root and are gaining social momentum. An almost conscious attempt at cynicism to protect one's self worth by applying the charge of pretense to anything remotely articulate. Engendered by the net-flow and aggregation of information in the information age; giving more people a sense of empowerment and entitlement, I presume.


"The Matrix isn't an intelligent movie: it's all grade school philosophy that tricks people into thinking it's saying something smart."

"You're looking way too much into Marcell Duchamp in an attempt to look/sound smart."

"Big/eccentric words do not make you sound smart. It actually proves you have little to say."

As a thinker, the belittling of almost any idea sets my soul on fire.
 
Timedog said:
The relation in any analogy they make at any point ever again can be polarity reversed to check for absolute phase cancellation.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but could you please explain this to me, or perhaps provide somewhere I can read into this? I have never heard of these terms.
 
I don't like moral outrage because it tends to end discussion. "Oh, I can accept such-and-such, but that's just fucked". And if someone tries to bring the discussion back to something rational, they get insinuations that they're somehow deviant. That's what usually makes a discussion distasteful, not someone 'playing devil's advocate'. If it's done calmly and reasonably and whether they believe in the position or not, it's how I get a fuller understanding of an issue. I understand that on some sensitive issues it's not appropriate on GAF, although if a person does believe in their position, it can be really useful knowing exactly where they're coming from.

I also don't like it when people take the worst interpretation of what someone posted. It's tiring, and often devolves into a side discussion of how that's not what they actually meant which is boring to read.

Various somewhat insulting openers, such as "you obviously didn't read what I posted,"; "You missed my point,"; "You must have a very limited understanding of...," etc. That's not to say they're not correct, but it puts people on the defensive and then things can get silly.

But I'm after two things in a discussion: entertainment and knowledge. Whichever way a thread goes, it'll usually provide one of them, so I don't have any real complaints.
 
The Gish Gallop is one I abhor. It's usually used by someone woefully misinformed on a subject, but they throw so much bullshit at you that you want to address one "fact" or argument at a time. And often their "points" may even conflict (cognitive dissonance in raw, pure form is something to behold).

Begging the question is one that is extremely common on social media, at least in my circles. I dislike it because those who use often have no idea they are, and react negatively when you explain to them how their very logic is flawed.

Oh, and arguments from incredulity. Another very, very common one on the Internet.

And finally ad hominems. Attacking the person, their tone, etc, rather than arguing the point. It shows a true lack of intelligence and a general mean streak. I typically immediately disengage when it reaches that point.
 
Does it count when you aren't even trying to have an argument and they turn it into one? I hate it when people point out that something is just my opinion when we are clearly discussing matters of opinion/taste and I never made any claim or even implied that it is an objective truth. There is no reason to put IMO on everything you say.
 
Timedog said:
I hate when someone says something at least somewhat vague, and I argue against my assumption of what their position is, only for them to say "that's not what I said". Then when asked to elaborate they simply point back to their original statement and refuse to say anything more, as if subtext and implication do not exist.

"I didn't LITERALLY say exactly those words, and I refuse to elaborate even a little bit, therefore you are an idiot. "

After falling victim to this I tried it a few times. It worked pretty well.
Click to expand...

Also known as French Philosophy.
 
Logical fallacies are the worst. More recently I have run into appeal to authority where someone thought that because a particular subject was a hobby of his, he was an expert at it. Even if you are an expert, that does not mean you know literally everything on the subject!

Away from fallacies, I hate when people simplify your argument. In the same argument mentioned above, my responses would typically comprise of 4 or 5 sentences, and my opposition would take 3 or 4 words and pick them apart while ignoring the overall point I was trying to make.
 
bitocoder said:
Logical fallacies are the worst. More recently I have run into appeal to authority where someone thought that because a particular subject was a hobby of his, he was an expert at it. Even if you are an expert, that does not mean you know literally everything on the subject.
Click to expand...

That doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, though.

People who rely on pointing out "logical fallacies" to win arguments are worse.
 
Acorn said:
Putting words into my mouth
Click to expand...

That's very annoying.
It's frustrating when I try very hard to be specific and say exactly what I mean, and then someone goes and argues or takes issue with something that I didn't say.


Foaloal said:
-"You can't judge x without having experienced x"
This one makes sense at first, until you realize you can easily judge things without experiencing them i.e. You (hopefully) wouldn't jump from a huge height as you know enough about what that would entail (pain, broken limbs, etc.) to make the judgement that it's probably not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Try being a picky eater.
"Oh, but how do you know you don't like X if you didn't try X?!"

Alright, I don't "know that I don't like it," but I have no desire to find out.
I don't go around shoving random things in my mouth to find out whether I like it or not.
/innuendo
 
The fallacy fallacy. People online who like to think they're great at debating do this a lot. They point out some fallacy in the way you construct your argument and act like everything else you said is immediately invalid. And the fallacy they point out isn't always a valid one. Just because you read some list of fallacies doesn't make you an expert on debating. You can't just use buzzwords to shut a person down, you have to actually argue against them.
 
I find it strange when people try to insert elements of postmodernist or solipsist rhetoric into their defence of an incorrect statement. If they say something that is factually wrong and I correct them, for example, they may reply, "That may be true for you, but not for me, as truth is relative."

There is no place for such epistemological quibbles when the necessary premise of argumentation is that there is truth, and this truth can be pursued and found with enough time and logical debate. Obviously, different arguments will have different postulates depending on the topic and the individuals involved; again obviously, the truth is not so easily discovered, as history shows us; it may admittedly not be a very accurate premise. But, if only for methodological purposes, it must be assumed that there is truth, for all argumentation seeks to discover truths and correct untruths, and would cease to be argumentation the moment such concepts are disallowed from existing.

Tesseract said:
you just got timedogged :0
Click to expand...

Oh dear.
 
I am constantly arguing with people. It's how I go through life and it's perhaps my number one source of bar entertainment.

i think the ”technique" that I find the most annoying is when people derail the conversation by picking up on increasingly small and irrelevant details in hopes of, I don't know, exhausting their opponent into a "we're both right" position. the goalposts have invariably moved miles down the road but they're still arguing and they're not wrong, so in their mind the debate is still up for grabs.

The number two candidate is the use of precise statistics with no intention on backing up their accuracy. Given the nature of the debate, some level of generalization is acceptable (unless your claim happens to be particularly outrageous, in which case it's time for the phones to come out) but of course, people are aware that simply saying something is a statistic can be a very powerful tool in an informal debate.
A cousin of this problem is people having debates that rely heavily on that kind of information with absolutely no statistics entering into the debate at all. It's just people throwing words at each other at that point.
 
The phrase "silent majority" I fucking hate that term so much.

It is used by everybody to try and bolster what ever point good or bad they are trying to make.

The silent majority agrees with me that X is....

In my mind i`m always screaming, A) How do you know its a majority? and B) If they are silent how do you know they fucking agree with you?

The most that you can really get from the "silent majority" is they dont really give a shit one way or the other.
 
False dichotomies are my pet peeve. For example:
- A child is reaching for a hot stove, would you slap her on the wrist to protect her or let her burn her hand?

Other is misrepresenting analogies.
- I'm saying you're giving two bad options to choose from without giving any room for alternatives. It's like you're making me choose between having syphilis and gonorrhea while in reality I could choose having neither.
- You're comparing protecting a child to syphilis now?
 
Freshmaker said:
Or it's used when someone recognizes a position is so extreme and pointless that engaging will bear no fruit.

"I hate seeing the poor living off the government with their mercedes and their caviar they bought on foodstamps!"

Where does one go from there? Pointing and laughing is perfectly valid in such cases.
Click to expand...


OrangeGrayBlue said:
That's a good point. Sometimes someone's beliefs are so far out that I can't think of a way to seriously discuss it with them because we're not even starting from the same vantage point. It's like trying to agree on what an oak tree looks like when the other person thinks oak trees are cats.
Click to expand...

That's fine and dandy, but when a person makes a valid point, then it becomes an annoyance and very dismissive of that point.
 
People who ask for sources and then proceed to dismiss them as not reliable enough if they're anything but a Nature\Science paper, even in casual arguments.
Sure, if we're talking serious things i'll pull serious sources (But even at that, i get dismissals of things like UN commission reports regarding chernobyl or things like that), but for 95%+ of arguments, wikipedia is plenty enough.


terrisus said:
"Wikipedia is as good as an encyclopedia*"
*Except when it isn't+
+One of many instances where it isn't

For one, encyclopediae generally don't make good sources either.
And, there are a whole host of issues with Wikipedia, its source selection, criteria, biases, etc.
Click to expand...

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Uhm.
Try again.
 
When you're talking specifically about a long relationship or marriage, I hate it when past mistakes get brought up over and over again for ever. Especially when the past mistake has absolutely nothing to do with what you're arguing about right now.

"Well if you hadn't done XYZ five years ago maybe I would not be upset about this."

"You said you forgave me for that"

"I did."

"SO WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP?"

argh.,..
 
Aureon said:
People who ask for sources and then proceed to dismiss them as not reliable enough if they're anything but a Nature\Science paper, even in casual arguments.
Sure, if we're talking serious things i'll pull serious sources (But even at that, i get dismissals of things like UN commission reports regarding chernobyl or things like that), but for 95%+ of arguments, wikipedia is plenty enough.
Click to expand...

On the other hand many are happy to dismiss those peer reviewed articles because they don't conform to their beliefs (which are supported by dubious blog posts).
 
TheJohann said:
I find it strange when people try to insert elements of postmodernist or solipsist rhetoric into their defence of an incorrect statement. If they say something that is factually wrong and I correct them, for example, they may reply, "That may be true for you, but not for me, as truth is relative."

There is no place for such epistemological quibbles when the necessary premise of argumentation is that there is truth, and this truth can be pursued and found with enough time and logical debate. Obviously, different arguments will have different postulates depending on the topic and the individuals involved; again obviously, the truth is not so easily discovered, as history shows us; it may admittedly not be a very accurate premise. But, if only for methodological purposes, it must be assumed that there is truth, for all argumentation seeks to discover truths and correct untruths, and would cease to be argumentation the moment such concepts are disallowed from existing.



Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Yes, I mentioned this earlier. It's sort of a nuclear option when someone is "losing" an argument and would rather blow the entire argument up than admit they might have been wrong about something.

Person A makes good point.
Person B: Well, truth can never be known absolutely.

Frankly, this is central to my dislike of postmodernism generally; it was explicitly a reaction to the growing prominence of science in universities. As the sciences gradually became the premiere departments in universities, humanities departments began to invoke postmodernism as a way to suggest that there is no better or worse way to approach investigation of the world, and that any interpretation of the world is as valid as any other. It's really the idea you're talking about writ large.
 
The most anoying thing for me is when arguments get polarized. Painting arguments as if there is only two sides that fit into nice sized boxes is disengenious I feel.

I don't like when people get rude either. Yeah they might have a point, but why would I willingly want to talk to an asshole?

I also agree with the assuming the worst intent of the poster. I've had situations where that happened and I feel like it just wastes time. The other person can just make up anything about you as a means to discredit your position and the argument doesn't go anywhere.

A lot of other stuff I can tolerate because I don't expect every person I argue with to know what every fallacy is. All I really want is people to be polite and open to a discussion, not a war zone.
 
Zhengi said:
That's fine and dandy, but when a person makes a valid point, then it becomes an annoyance and very dismissive of that point.
Click to expand...

Right, virtually all of these arguments are useful in at least some situations. For example, Cyan pointed out the "in b4 _____ argument" simply as a way to undercut that argument before it's stated, even if that argument is perfectly rational and fair. "In b4 people claim the video game industry can be sexist!"

On the other hand, sometimes it's actually very much our duty (As moderators) to cut off tired, old, or cliched arguments before they even get brought up. Sometimes it's a consequence of thread-derail potential, or because the topic is only tangentially related to the topic at hand (Nintendo threads often end up being discussions of third party relations, for instance).

Most of these argumentative techniques are not bad in all situations, they're just used in situations where they don't belong. As another example, semantic arguments are often very valuable and valid, but they're also often the last resort for someone who has "lost" the primary thrust of a debate but would rather pick at any detail they can than admit they "lost."
 
The linking of completely unrelated issues in an attempt to misrepresent the other party's position.

I.E: "If you don't support feminism you must be a sexist." or "If you support gay marriage, I bet you support pedophilia/bestiality as well."
 
DigitalDevil said:
When you're talking specifically about a long relationship or marriage, I hate it when past mistakes get brought up over and over again for ever. Especially when the past mistake has absolutely nothing to do with what you're arguing about right now.

"Well if you hadn't done XYZ five years ago maybe I would not be upset about this."

"You said you forgave me for that"

"I did."

"SO WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP?"

argh.,..
Click to expand...

Story of my life.
 
Tesseract said:
oh, hm.

hm

something i also don't get is why some prioritize (or emphasize) court of public opinion over law. like, what?
Click to expand...

You can also see people bounce back and forth depending on which suits their current needs. The best example of this are biased news sources like Fox or MSNBC: they can pick to cite legal precedent, scientific evidence, or popular opinion, and will switch between these concerns as needed for their political affiliation.
 
You know, the kind of technique where the person says something that doesn't make sense and refuses to acknowledge that it doesn't make sense despite your earnest attempts at explaining why it doesn't make sense and is smugly confident that it actually does make sense. I think that pretty much covers all of them.

Also, people who treat arguments like fights instead of mutual learning experiences tend to 1) use annoying argumentative techniques themselves and 2) be easily annoyed at other people's argumentation styles. Accordingly, try not to become too emotionally invested in arguments, especially on the internet. You won't get a brain tumor or lose your job if you are wrong on the internet. If you get too worked up, you're more likely to treat an argument like a fight, and your ability to reason and learn will suffer.

Finally, this last comment isn't about "technique," but rather about tone. If you are either flippant or over-serious, you will annoy people regardless of how sound your reasoning is.
 
When people try to argue the technicalities of the topic at hand without a fundamental understanding of it. You can see it in threads about sexism and homophobia.
 
Goya said:
You know, the kind of technique where the person says something that doesn't make sense and refuses to acknowledge that it doesn't make sense despite your earnest attempts at explaining why it doesn't make sense and is smugly confident that it actually does make sense. I think that pretty much covers all of them.
Click to expand...

i always smile at the rare duder who concedes the high ground.

SomedayTheFire said:
When people try to argue the technicalities of the topic at hand without a fundamental understanding of it. You can see it in threads about sexism and homophobia.
Click to expand...

i'm seldom guilty of this (not sexism or homophobia) but am proud to say i'm usually schooled by users like devo, lore, etcetera

being properly argumentatively owned is good; you apologize, learn, and adapt.
 
A lot of good ones in here.

The ones that really tick me off are people who treat a debate like an argument, in which they turn it around and make it about them personally. I'll never understand this. I love to debate, gage the mind, seek difference in opinion, but only when I do ask for further information on why someone thinks that way, or in other words "put them on the spot", it instantly becomes an argument to them because at that point, they feel like they are being attacked. Then the next day it's like, "I don't want to talk to you anymore etc".

The next one for me, is dismissal of conversation based on fear of being judged or the anticipation of being wrong. I don't judge anyone for their opinions, but I would be a liar to say I don't on actions. I do, but because I'm so curious about everything and why people are the way they are, think the way they think - it irks me that some people just shy away from the conversation... Especially when you are trying to meet them half way.

Another word be, "spell checks" which a lot of people have harped on. It's really insulting someone's intelligence just because their point makes sense but because one word is spelt wrong (if they don't agree), they Latch on to that one word which is spelled wrong as a "Gotcha, your opinion doesn't matter now." Like, you know what they meant to say, now please site your rebuttal.
 
molvetica said:
That doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, though.

People who rely on pointing out "logical fallacies" to win arguments are worse.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. If you do not have sufficient evidence to support your claims - you're wrong. "I'm an expert" is not evidence.

The point of fallacies is to expose errors in reasoning and the soundness of an argument. The root of the argument cannot be based on faulty reasoning. This applies to any topic, not just debate. For example, I just learned in my class that the waterfall development method was based on logical errors, and that iterative development has a much higher success rate based on the evidence surrounding it. Waterfall never had any evidence in its favor - companies have been using it unsuccessfully for years based on someone advising them to do it because they're "an expert".

I do agree with you though on some occasions. If you make a great argument and then at the end throw in some random fallacy, I do not think that the fallacy should immediately invalidate your argument.
 
Ian said:
A technique that I've noticed used solely by women is to bring up something that you did fucking years ago that has nothing to do with the current situation. Why and how do women remember these things?

It throws me off guard and I completely lose my train of thought.
Click to expand...

Haha my ex wife was the queen of this.
 
The one I ran into recently-

OP: (Stated topic) why would people do this?
Me: I have a friend(s) who are into this, here are some facts I know from them
GAFer 1: Sure a friend....
GAFer 2: Who cares, their all degenerate sickos
GAFer 3: Post tired old meme that is brought up every time the topic appears

Thread dies

There is no discussion possible here
 
This is a tough one. I dislike when people argue that you can‘t understand/be right about something if you lack a certain perspective (ex your gender, or your race). It‘s tough because having that perspective is important but I‘ve seen it used as an opinion invalidator in situations where I think everyone can understand. A corollary of this would that if you do have the perspective, arguing that you can‘t be challenged (especially by somone who lacks the perspective). Again it‘s tricky because you know what, maybe you‘re right but it‘s basically impossible to test.
 
bitocoder said:
Logical fallacies are the worst. More recently I have run into appeal to authority where someone thought that because a particular subject was a hobby of his, he was an expert at it. Even if you are an expert, that does not mean you know literally everything on the subject!

Away from fallacies, I hate when people simplify your argument. In the same argument mentioned above, my responses would typically comprise of 4 or 5 sentences, and my opposition would take 3 or 4 words and pick them apart while ignoring the overall point I was trying to make.
Click to expand...

Argument from authority - I try hard not to do it myself. I imagine many do. When you have a degree and a decade of experience in a field it's hard not to just end a conversation in a statement that's essentially "you're wrong, and I don't have time to tell you why". It takes a bigger person to calmly explain why. The worst is when someone cites a source as an authority who really isn't, like a MD talking about nutrition (as an example) when you look them up and they're a dentist who got their PHD from a mill.
 
bitocoder said:
Yes it does. If you do not have sufficient evidence to support your claims - you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. You could be perfectly right but just not have evidence for it. Happens all the time.

For example, I just learned in my class that the waterfall development method was based on logical errors, and that iterative development has a much higher success rate based on the evidence surrounding it. Waterfall never had any evidence in its favor - companies have been using it unsuccessfully for years based on someone advising them to do it because they're "an expert".
Click to expand...

Ah well. There's another one. Just because you learned something in class doesn't make it true.

(In this example, there's plenty in favour of some style of waterfall development when development or production resources are scarce or expensive or slow or all three - like for example when I started programming in a company of several thousand people with millions of customers and one computer between us all.)
 
phisheep said:
Not necessarily. You could be perfectly right but just not have evidence for it. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...

I would actually argue that following the evidence is far more important than being right.

Let's say a casino has a die that I have strong evidence is heavily weighted to roll a 1. I follow it one hundred times, and it rolls a 1 ninety eight out of one hundred times. Thus, when asked, I place a bet that it will roll a 1 the next time.

Let's say the die rolls a 2 instead. Was a wrong to bet on 1 instead of 2?
 
A girl I know is quite argumentative, and when she's sick of arguing or she feels like she's losing she'll say something like "Why are you arguing" or "You're so argumentative" at which point being quiet is the only option because if you say something like "I'm not" or "You're arguing just as much as me" she'll say "See, you're still arguing, you can't stop" and look at other people in the room with a smug "see, he won't stop" look on her face. Online this is sometimes replicated with calling people salty, or saying something like "Why so serious?" ... just because I'm not adding a smiley face or a meme at the end of every sentence doesn't mean I'm enraged.

Another guy I know just never admits he's wrong. Even if an entire room is against him and we look it up on the net. We were playing a rhyming game and I can't remember what he said, but it totally didn't rhyme with the previous word (like not even close) and everyone said "that doesn't rhyme" and we looked it up in several rhyming dictionaries online and he was still saying shit like "I got an A in English A-Level, I think I know when something rhymes". He also has no memory (or chooses to forget) and argues for so long that by the end he's denying he made his initial argument and twisting it to say he always said something closer to the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Guys, which comics do you read? Manga aside!
2
62
904
Queso de Grande replied
  • Locked
Which Woke show/game/comic would you rescue? Anti-wokes only.
Opinion 
27
578
Hawk The Slayer replied
Which do you consider to be the worst episode of The Simpsons?
2
50
1K
Dr Cowley replied
  • Poll
Which one have you missed more your old car or your old computer
38
833
6502 replied
Where do you live and which country would you like to live in?
2 3
109
3K
p_xavier replied
Top Bottom