Argumentative techniques which annoy you

Status
Not open for further replies.
It annoys me when people enter a thread with sarcastic depictions of what they think their opponents' arguments will be before anyone actually makes those arguments. Even when those positions are actually ridiculous ("Clearly Blizzard actually supports Gamergate!"), it poisons the well for any actual discussion.

This happens a ton in political threads in OT.
 
I definitely agree; this is where a lot of the problems come from. People don't want to feel they've "lost" an argument, and will hold on to even the tiniest shred of an argument if they feel it allows them to escape total "defeat."

If people viewed arguments as simply a way for people to better understand the world, this wouldn't be the case. Unfortunately, it's usually viewed as a competition.

This is the big one for me. The form of this that really gets me is when people are very clearly misunderstanding their own reasons for believing something.

Like, someone asserts X. You ask why they believe that. They provide a bad argument. You demonstrate that it's a bad argument, and they basically agree, insofar as they don't think there's an answer to the objection. So then they jump to some other argument for the same conclusion, which is an even worse argument because they clearly invented it on the spot in order to have some argument that wasn't known to be bad. And then you're stuck shooting down dumb argument after dumb argument that the person hasn't even spent much time thinking about.

There's a reluctance to recognize that their belief in the thing they're trying to argue for is prior to reason. People know what their position is, and they think they believe that for a reason, but when that reason blows up they construct new reasons on the spot. They end up bizarrely confident that these new reasons are the real reasons to take their position because they're convinced of the position and haven't thought of any other reason-shaped things yet, so this one must be the right one.
 
When people insist that i have the respect their opinion, especially when their opinion is that "being homosexual is a choice", "ghost's are defiantly real" its like people don't get that yeah opinions can infact be wrong and using the defence "but thats my opionion and you have to respect that" doesnt mean I have to respect their opinion :/
 
This is the big one for me. The form of this that really gets me is when people are very clearly misunderstanding their own reasons for believing something.

Like, someone asserts X. You ask why they believe that. They provide a bad argument. You demonstrate that it's a bad argument, and they basically agree, insofar as they don't think there's an answer to the objection. So then they jump to some other argument for the same conclusion, which is an even worse argument because they clearly invented it on the spot in order to have some argument that wasn't known to be bad. And then you're stuck shooting down dumb argument after dumb argument that the person hasn't even spent much time thinking about.

There's a reluctance to recognize that their belief in the thing they're trying to argue for is prior to reason. People know what their position is, and they think they believe that for a reason, but when that reason blows up they construct new reasons on the spot, and they end up bizarrely confident that these new reasons are the real reasons to take their position because they're convinced of the position and haven't thought of any other reason-shaped things yet, so this one must be the right one.

This irritates me too. But even worse is bad arguments used in good causes. It can be very difficult to show the badness of the argument without seeming to attack the worthy cause - and getting shot down for it.
 
People responding to a detailed argument sharpshooting tiny details without addressing the important points at all.

It's gotten to a point where if I see someone argue an unpopular viewpoint extremely well, but there's one little thing wrong, I can pretty much predict what the entire thread is going to be about.
 
It annoys me when people enter a thread with sarcastic depictions of what they think their opponents' arguments will be before anyone actually makes those arguments. Even when those positions are actually ridiculous ("Clearly Blizzard actually supports Gamergate!"), it poisons the well for any actual discussion.

This happens a ton in political threads in OT.

This is one practice I sort of wish could be banned. The thing it, I don't really want it gone. It can be really funny when done well. But it's rarely done well, so instead you have 30 posts of people making the same jokes poorly, for every one person who can do it well.
 
This is the big one for me. The form of this that really gets me is when people are very clearly misunderstanding their own reasons for believing something.

Like, someone asserts X. You ask why they believe that. They provide a bad argument. You demonstrate that it's a bad argument, and they basically agree, insofar as they don't think there's an answer to the objection. So then they jump to some other argument for the same conclusion, which is an even worse argument because they clearly invented it on the spot in order to have some argument that wasn't known to be bad. And then you're stuck shooting down dumb argument after dumb argument that the person hasn't even spent much time thinking about.

There's a reluctance to recognize that their belief in the thing they're trying to argue for is prior to reason. People know what their position is, and they think they believe that for a reason, but when that reason blows up they construct new reasons on the spot. They end up bizarrely confident that these new reasons are the real reasons to take their position because they're convinced of the position and haven't thought of any other reason-shaped things yet, so this one must be the right one.

I think this is usually the result of back-filling. A person decides that a premise or assertion is correct, not based on any logical or even reasoned justification, but because it simply must be true based on ideology or some other dogma. The reasons they have at the ready to hand out are only there for occasions when people ask for them, and their existence and quality are wholly unrelated to why they believe what they believe. So they keep trying since the belief is unquestionably true and, therefore, a reason simply must exist that satisfies everyone else.
 
People responding to a detailed argument sharpshooting tiny details without addressing the important points at all.

It's gotten to a point where if I see someone argue an unpopular viewpoint extremely well, but there's one little thing wrong, I can pretty much predict what the entire thread is going to be about.

I think that depends on the "unpopular viewpoint" as well. There are good reasons why some viewpoints are unappreciated.
 
I think that depends on the "unpopular viewpoint" as well. There are good reasons why some viewpoints are unappreciated.

That's fine, but you can still attack the substance of someone's argument instead of zeroing in on something minor and beating that to death.
 
I can feel you on the "why you mad?" comments. What I'm referring to is pointing out to someone that their emotion is getting in the way of discourse.

I guess my point about civility is that this is a forum, and a heavily moderated one at that. It's hard to imagine that there are ever too many instances where incivility is warranted in the context of a forum conversation. I agree that in the real world uncivilly might be warranted especially if it is civility that is being used as a pretext to harm others.

Pointing out to someone that their emotion is getting in the way of discourse/logic is a proper response though. It's dismissing one's argument on the basis of tone alone that's annoying.

As for the forum - whether or not incivility/heavy language/emotional responses are warranted should be a matter of personal discretion (and ultimately mod decision.) That being said, the tone of the language still shouldn't matter in the direct dismissal of one's argument. Imagine if a comedian like Lewis Black or Bill Mahr is on the forum. It's very possible that they they may speak in a rude/offensive/anger-like manner, but that doesn't mean their argument is automatically dismissible.
 
they can be though, and they get old real quick:

i7aVyf3.jpg

omg

they really, really need to add those Fallacy Icons to a mobile Emoji keyboard.

would make things SO much easier.

sonicmj1 said:
It annoys me when people enter a thread with sarcastic depictions of what they think their opponents' arguments will be before anyone actually makes those arguments. Even when those positions are actually ridiculous ("Clearly Blizzard actually supports Gamergate!"), it poisons the well for any actual discussion.
Oh yeah. This. Like crazy.

Especially of its a touchy issue like a feminism-related topic, or that "catcalling/attack" thread, it's like people are waiting with sharpened knives in there ready to just tear into anyone who might stray from the line just a millimetre. I have to admit I don't touch those threads much anymore, because it's like walking through a minefield.
 
Getting really worked up and emotional and trying to guilt trip you when she's about to lose the argument.

Only ever seen women act like that, it's ridiculous. I've seen a couple of men working up for a fight but women are just on another level.
 
"You're just saying that because you're biased."

As if the person saying this isn't also inextricably shaped by their upbringing, experiences, environment, education and culture to think about the world and process information in certain ways.
 
Busting out definitions, for one. "Now wait a second, I think [offensive, wrong, controversial, etc. viewpoint] doesn't fall within what you constitute as [offensive, wrong, controversial, etc.] because according to this definition I took two seconds to search on dictionary.com because I really have no further argument, [offensive, wrong, controversial] is defined as X and not [my bad opinions], so therefore I can really keep getting away with this scot-free."

One that comes up time and time again is the whole minority representation thing, too, especially as applied to playable characters over on Gaming-side. "It's not that I have anything against blacks, but I mean, how am I supposed to relate to playing as a black guy who does video gamey things such as shoot guns? I didn't grow up in the hood, man." Meanwhile they spend god-knows-how-many hours playing as wizards, sentient rubiks cubes, space lizards, whatever - the point is they seem to draw the line at playing something that would risk them coming to terms with their own insecurity and paranoia over conflicts that aren't really there. When I say conflicts that aren't there I'm talking about a minority underclass somehow undermining / oppressing the white cishet male buzz-cut 18-35 space marine protagonists, not the issue of minority under-representation itself.

Other gems for counterpoints versus ethnically fleshing out the possible spectrum of protagonists include:
- "how am i supposed to relate?"
- "is there really a market for this?"
- "a native american protagonist? that's cool and all, but there are barely any of them in america. i mean, how are us white guys supposed to be able to play this and enjoy it?"
- "i don't see color"
- extension of the above: "you can be black, white, pink, purple, Dutch, whatever - i'm cool with all colors of the rainbow"
- "i think having minority protags is missing the point of gaming. the gameplay is supposed to be enjoyable, bottom line. that's why i shelled out $2500 for this gaming rig that plays Bubble Bobble at 8K stereoscopic 3D with 256xMSAA and constantly bitch about jaggies on games i've never played!"
- "if your game has a minority represented and it's not a good game, well, what's the point?"
- "I think people are getting way too stressed out about political correctness these days, I mean god, I can't even pull rape jokes at the office if Tracy and her gal-pals are within earshot. What happened to America? And god help you if you try and stereotype the Mexicans."
- "These guys seem a little too thuggish to really identify with, you know? How am I supposed to click with a protagonist who breaks up drug deals and occasionally has to outrun the police? At least when I was killing half a million people to get Zombie Genocider I could relate to the player character."

And, what's probably the worst of them all:
"I guess I could see why people would be into it, but I just don't see the appeal of playing as a minority character." I'm talking about actively dismissing the idea of even a single game with a minority protagonist - specifically calling them out and saying you're not interested when, as an 18-35 white dude, you have roughly a quarter billion other games featuring white protags you can relate to out there.
 
Not a lot...but this is annoying

"I just FEEL this way"

which...seemingly, gives someone the ability to completely ignore logic in an argument and feel like they are right, its ridiculous.
 
Talking really fast and/or won't shut up. Apparently out-talking someone means your argument is more sound. Apparently you're also a dumbass.
 
Anyone who brings up religion to back something.

Look, that is great for you personally. But you can't expect everyone else to follow your subjective religious code and believe its articles of faith. It is just a non starter for any public policy.

This is not acceptable argument by Inhofe:
 
It annoys me when people enter a thread with sarcastic depictions of what they think their opponents' arguments will be before anyone actually makes those arguments. Even when those positions are actually ridiculous ("Clearly Blizzard actually supports Gamergate!"), it poisons the well for any actual discussion.

This happens a ton in political threads in OT.

Not all cops right GAF? Just a few bad apples?
 
"Oh my god, why are you always so obsessed with proving me wrong, anyway??"
- friend who, from what I can tell, is physically incapable of admitting when she's wrong, and will always revert to this tactic when she realises she's losing.
 
Semantic rebuttals.

My coworkers and I got into an argument with my boss the other day because he said he loves when we buy things because then he "owns us" and we're his "bitches" who can't leave. So when we called him out on that not being an okay thing to say to your employees he started yelling about "OH SO NOW YOU'RE SAYING I BELIEVE IN SLAVERY".

Then he said he never said it and we were making it up to rile people up. Which we responded that it literally just happened the day before and that his immediate response to everything is to call us liars. To which he responds with "I never called you the word 'liar' once.". Just that we were making it up and there's no proof he said it.

It was the most aggravating thing possible.

You end up in this endless loop of trying to prove a point that doesn't matter while the actual issue never gets addressed.
 
I hate when people simply refute an actual study or research with an anecdote or even an opinion. You need to either refute it with better research or actually read how the study was done to determine if it's flawed and prove your case.

Climate change deniers are especially guilty of this. They just dismiss the results like people are wasting their time researching this stuff. Even the #NotAllMen types are guilty as they're usually responding to some study and don't want to be grouped in if it doesn't say nice things. The human brain is so imperfect in this way.
 
I see "oh now you're just arguing semantics" brought up way too often in arguments where precise language is important and also not the main point of contention with the opposing poster(s). Focusing on tone over points presented is also pretty obnoxious.
 
Shouting. Attacking people personally. Condescending tone. Creating a straw man of an argument and complaining about it in another thread.
 
People who grew up learning that debates are won by whoever shouts their opinion the loudest, not by actual discussion or anything silly like that. Unfortunately, this is literally my entire family, the extended ones too.

I see "oh now you're just arguing semantics" brought up way too often in arguments where precise language is important and also not the main point of contention with the opposing poster(s).

Oh my god, this. Semantics is important, that's why WE HAVE A WORD FOR IT.
 
I hate when people simply refute an actual study or research with an anecdote or even an opinion.

Yeah, this was touched on at the beginning of the thread, but I definitely agree.


<Person posts research study showing relationship between ThingA and ThingB>

"I ThingA, but I don't ThingB! This study is nonsense!"

Or, another popular one, "Correlation doesn't equal causation!"
(No kidding... try reading the study).
 
Semantic rebuttals.

I see "oh now you're just arguing semantics" brought up way too often in arguments where precise language is important and also not the main point of contention with the opposing poster(s).

Agreed - precise wording/phrasing/articulation is often very important. Taking issue with how something is worded/phrased/articulated doesn't mean one is ignoring the entire point - just that it's important to be clear about what the point is.
 
Do arguments from incredulity count? Probably the most annoying argument type from creationists.

BTW, circular logic is a much better name than circular reasoning.
 
I get that it's sometimes valid, but "check your privilege" is rapidly driving me insane. What, I can't have any intelligent thoughts on the subject because of my background? Seriously?
 
Citing data without commenting on or analyzing the data. Bear with me.

Data is a valuable commodity in the language of arguments, but citing random data without analyzing it and drawing one's own conclusions from it is inane and does nothing to support or deny any argument. Assuming data has some inherent truth locked away inside it is asinine. One can draw different conclusions from similar data. Dropping a study, survey, results, or the like from something really does nothing to support or deny a claim without critical analysis from both parties.

I feel it's a large problem on the internet especially, with people very much so having confirmation bias and going off to google away their reasoning for them. Even if said data doesn't necessarily dictate any obvious logical conclusion.

"But check this out" [cites data]

VS

"But check this out" [cites data]. "I feel like since they are taking into account X and Y, and considering Z in their calculation, this paints a obvious picture as to what is happening. With that being said, considering that [logical argument here], I feel this supports my position on [whatever we're arguing about]"

The latter opens the door for counter-arguments to said data or studies, allowing for further arguments about the merit of the data or the conclusions drawn (if any) in the cited study or article.
 
People that suggest what they were originally arguing meant X instead of Y (riding on ambiguity all along and don't want to take a firm position on what they're arguing because they don't want to "lose" or be incorrect in the end). This includes people who think they are correct or solving a problem because they were being evenhanded about a situation when one side is clearly incorrect about something.

On a related note, a Know-it-all that has this awful habit of avoiding questions with a simple "Yes" or "No" but some elaborate runaround because they don't want to appear ignorant or uninformed ever.
 
Agreed - precise wording/phrasing/articulation is often very important. Taking issue with how something is worded/phrased/articulated doesn't mean one is ignoring the entire point - just that it's important to be clear about what the point is.

If someone says that you're not telling the truth, they're calling you a liar. Like what is being iterated on the other side, words have meaning. If you're using the definition in place of the words, you're saying the same thing. An absence of a word is not an absence of intent.

Also, in my case, it absolutely was ignoring the point. Spending an hour going in circles whether saying you "own" somebody and they're your "bitch" is meant as literal slavery or being disrespectful (the point) is 100% ignoring the actual point. Which is exactly why it annoys me.
 
One I hate is if you criticise A for doing X, someone might say "yes, but B, C and D do X as well" with the implication that that somehow excuses A, rather than making B/C/D just as bad as A.

Overall, I think that what I hate the most is that people regularly argue because of pure ego and not wanting to be wrong, which leads them to make all kinds of logical fallacies and confirmation bias errors. A good debate should be about defeating your opponent, sure, but it's also an opportunity to learn and the latter is what most people are not interested in, I've found.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom