Conkersbadfurday
Member
hate this one. I hate hate hate hate hate [shake it off] this one.
Argumentative techniques which annoy you
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
- Status
That1BlackGuy
Member
I don't argue with people, I prefer to debate. When I think of arguments I think of people trying to "win" and that annoys me. Many things have already been mentioned that I don't care for but the standouts are for me:
-ban baiting and dog-piling (don't care how wrong someone is, that's some bully type shit in my eyes)
-passive aggressiveness
-trying to "win" an argument
-tone/thought policing (specifically thought policing)
-attempting to shut the opposite view out of the conversation rather than respectfully engage their points
-dickish one liners
-guilt tripping
-excessive hyperbole
Use of that stuff and I'll unapologetically disengage right there. In other words be respectful. I disagree with lots of people on lots of shit, thing is that I don't debate to change someone else's mind on anything because frankly I don't care. I'm" far more interested in their perspective/opinions no matter how unacceptable I may or may not find it. I primarily debate in real life because it cuts out a lot of the passive hostility you typically encounter on the Internet. As I've often said debate on the Internet like you would in real life, if you know saying x would provoke someone in real life don't say it on the Internet.
-ban baiting and dog-piling (don't care how wrong someone is, that's some bully type shit in my eyes)
-passive aggressiveness
-trying to "win" an argument
-tone/thought policing (specifically thought policing)
-attempting to shut the opposite view out of the conversation rather than respectfully engage their points
-dickish one liners
-guilt tripping
-excessive hyperbole
Use of that stuff and I'll unapologetically disengage right there. In other words be respectful. I disagree with lots of people on lots of shit, thing is that I don't debate to change someone else's mind on anything because frankly I don't care. I'm" far more interested in their perspective/opinions no matter how unacceptable I may or may not find it. I primarily debate in real life because it cuts out a lot of the passive hostility you typically encounter on the Internet. As I've often said debate on the Internet like you would in real life, if you know saying x would provoke someone in real life don't say it on the Internet.
Pro from Dover
Member
Whenever the year gets brought up.
thoseAREmySHOES
Member
Lots of good ones in this thread. Citing anecdotal evidence as absolute fact is the one that annoys me the most.
(I was gonna make an "I have a friend that does this all the time" joke, but I thought it might be out of place in a pretty good thread
)
(I was gonna make an "I have a friend that does this all the time" joke, but I thought it might be out of place in a pretty good thread
)
Myths
Member
"In my opinion, the Earth is round." And similar responses: "Well, I haven't been around it and neither have you so I don't know if that's true. Or even if you have, I haven't so yeah."
"In my opinion, the Earth is flat."
"The moon isn't real, it's an illusion and isn't spherical."
"2+2=5" Then proceeds to argue something nonsensical such as the "+" being an integer or "adds" to the sum.
People taking objective, general arguments as an attack on their person, when it really isn't. Not sure how to explain it, but if you for example bring up a feminist issue and the other person, a man, takes it too heart and starts talking about men's rights. Yes, men have issues to, but it's not the specific thing I'm talking about right now, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, they are different things. Similar would be white people taking arguments against racism as an attack on them, while they themselves not necessarily hold racist views (though many of them do, lol).
Derekloffin
Member
Yeah, that's essentially the two wrongs make a right argument. However, you do have to be careful as although it isn't proof of rightness, it does show inconsistency, and that can mean the 'wrong' isn't actually wrong and may in fact be itself an argumentive flaw, special pleading.
terrisus
Member
I wasn't addressing your specific case.
In fact, I didn't even include it in my quote.
My issue was with the assertion that there's anything inherently "wrong" with discussing semantics.
Inception: This is now a semantic discussion >.>
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
I really dislike it when people cite some random news article they took two seconds to look up on Google as proof of their argument. This happens pretty frequently in threads involving pseudoscience. They never actually look through the actual study and often not even the article they link to.
I also dislike when people ask me to "just let it go" in an argument that they've decided they don't want to have anymore
Not because they don't want to debate anymore -- that's completely fine. I've certainly felt that way before. But if that's all they want, then they should let it go. I'm still interested in debate; why don't they "let it go?"
It's especially amusing when someone cites an article that purportedly proves their point when it actually does the exact opposite. It happens more frequently than one might expect.
Not because they don't want to debate anymore -- that's completely fine. I've certainly felt that way before. But if that's all they want, then they should let it go. I'm still interested in debate; why don't they "let it go?"
It's especially amusing when someone cites an article that purportedly proves their point when it actually does the exact opposite. It happens more frequently than one might expect.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
The "let it go" part isn't necessarily the argument. It's the sentiment.
Cheat Code
Member
People getting me angry to the point of swearing on purpose then taking offense/telling me to calm down because I swore.
Oh, I understand the distinction; I've seen it used both ways. I'm not talking Disney "let it go" here.
I get bothered in my own discussions or arguments with people when I think I'm being misrepresented in their responses to me. Which a decent chunk of the time is going to be because I communicated poorly, but I do wish people would assume the best instead of the worst.
I get bothered in discussions not directly involving me by arguments that seek to silence rather than discuss. Some examples:
The bingo cards approach bothers me. Line up all the arguments you think your opponent(s) might use and mock them ahead of time. Then if someone shows up using that argument, you get to point back to your preemptive mocking and go "lol called it." It's a fine way to make sure you get to enjoy the argument and belittle anyone who argues with you, but it's not a good way of discussing things. I understand why this happens, but it's still not great.
Related, it especially bothers me when the arguments so mocked are legit positions people might hold, that are being called out because oftentimes people who hold shitty positions retreat to those legit ones rather than argue for what they actually believe. Like, remember that Duck Dynasty guy getting in trouble for homophobic remarks? Someone who's a homophobe and wanted to defend him might retreat to arguing about free speech, rather than trying to actually defend the comments. So then it's tempting to assume everyone who argues about free speech in that context is actually just a homophobe, which has the unfortunate effect of making it really difficult to have an actual potentially interesting discussion about free speech. (Yes, I have seen the xkcd comic.
On GAF, there's also the classic move of trying to bait someone into a ban, which is no fun. If someone comes into a thread and argues something like free speech, and someone else suspects they might be a homophobe, they start poking and probing and trying to get the poster to admit to having a problem with gay people, and ultimately get them banned. It's easier to poke at them and bait them than engage them. Again, silencing rather than discussing.
As I said above, I get why all these happen. It's tedious to hear the same arguments over and over, the same deflections and retreats-to-legit-positions, and it's tiring to have to respond to them individually instead of just saying "fuck it" and rounding off to the nearest racist. But doing that too much, rounding off instead of responding, silencing instead of discussing, makes honest discourse really difficult. This might not matter to some folks, who might reason that in some cases, "honest discourse" just isn't necessary. I think I understand that position as well. But, well. I like open discourse with reasonable moderation, and I feel like I see possible ongoing meta-spirals of shutting down various avenues of discussion, and it kind of makes me sad.
Man, I'm not even sure where all that came from.
It came from the part of you that hates the argument equivalent of "in before X"
terrisus
Member
Definitely agree with this.
People's critical thinking and analysis skills seem to be getting lower and lower.
If something states that it does something (argues in favor of/against something, descrobes something, etc.) people seem willing to just accept that it does what it says it's doing and use it as a "source" for that. Regardless of whether it actually does that, or does a good job at that.
I blame Frozen
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I have a roommate who, like clockwork, will start replying to arguments by prefacing every statement with "Ultimately speaking" or "At the end of the day" and it's ingratiating because it blatantly implies that he feels his point of view is beyond contention. It translates to "Say whatever you like, but I know the truth and this is what it is." Sorry, but saying something is right because it just is doesn't strengthen your argument.
He also tends to scale the ladder of abstraction regularly. A debate about the Israel/Palestine conflict, for instance, will slowly devolve into a debate about religion as a whole if you allow him to steer the debate. Any time he starts losing ground he just broadens the horizon.
One time I got into a debate with him that he dragged on for 3+ hours until the sun was coming up. When I told him that I'd stated my entire argument 10 times over and that he's just being contrarian so I was walking away and going to bed, he said "Alright so you're giving up". Incredible.
Unfortunately he feels like he's a pretty bright guy because he surrounds himself with imbeciles for friends. I'm talking about "Why do gay guys have to be feminine? They're still men and should act like it" levels of imbecile.
Obviously I'm venting a bit
He also tends to scale the ladder of abstraction regularly. A debate about the Israel/Palestine conflict, for instance, will slowly devolve into a debate about religion as a whole if you allow him to steer the debate. Any time he starts losing ground he just broadens the horizon.
One time I got into a debate with him that he dragged on for 3+ hours until the sun was coming up. When I told him that I'd stated my entire argument 10 times over and that he's just being contrarian so I was walking away and going to bed, he said "Alright so you're giving up". Incredible.
Unfortunately he feels like he's a pretty bright guy because he surrounds himself with imbeciles for friends. I'm talking about "Why do gay guys have to be feminine? They're still men and should act like it" levels of imbecile.
Obviously I'm venting a bit
Pro from Dover
Member
Unfortunately he feels like he's a pretty bright guy because he surrounds himself with imbeciles for friends. I'm talking about "Why do gay guys have to be feminine? They're still men and should act like it" levels of imbecile.
Obviously I'm venting a bit
Ah, yeah, the smart fellow. They are smart fellows, so how could they be wrong?
I'm not sure if this applies but the thing I hate most is when someone pops in to say something to the effect of "Wow so many people in this thread are angry at <kasoeiwos>"
The other one I hate is when the post starts off with an aggressively sarcastic "Huh?" Or "uhhh what?" It's like an immediate indication that you're an ass.
The other one I hate is when the post starts off with an aggressively sarcastic "Huh?" Or "uhhh what?" It's like an immediate indication that you're an ass.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I've had people around here completely dismiss what I'm saying because I've worked in the industry that they're upset about at the moment.
Buckethead
Banned
When your opponent claims to want to have a serious conversation/debate but fails to reasonably engage with any of your points.
When you present evidence and they claim that "people can use statistics to say anything".
When you present evidence and they claim that "people can use statistics to say anything".
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Oh man, dismissing data/statistics is obnoxious. I had a friend argue that keeping a car running while you're parked is more gas efficient and I told him that turning a car back on is equivalent to about 10 seconds of idling so it's actually better to turn it off. I provided several articles that backed this up. His counter-argument was that he "knows his car".
I mean, if you dismiss experiment results or statistics or studies as easily fabricated... what could you possibly find to be more infallible? I get that statistics CAN be manipulated, but dismissing them 100% of the time is a giant beacon saying the way you feel about something is more important to you than what's actually true.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
There's something referred to as the Bias Steamroller. Basically, when someone is so ludicrously fixated on a particular aspect of a subject that they cannot wrap their heads around the entire thing at all. All they see is their pet peeve and believe it's the detail that everything pivots on. Regardless of how relevant that detail is to the big picture or even the actual point at hand.
This kind of obsession can be good for entertainment value such as when someone is writing their own very subjective opinion of a work, idea or topic, but you can't talk to people that hung-up on a single element of something. It becomes all about them, and their fanatical attitude towards the sticking point.
This kind of obsession can be good for entertainment value such as when someone is writing their own very subjective opinion of a work, idea or topic, but you can't talk to people that hung-up on a single element of something. It becomes all about them, and their fanatical attitude towards the sticking point.
Kotetsu534
Member
- Anecdotes being misused as evidence.
- Going after the individual instead of their argument (sometimes it's justified to raise issues about a particular individual, but their argument should be addressed too).
- Reacting to any generalisation whatsoever with a response to the effect that they're meaningless as all individuals are different.
- Going after the individual instead of their argument (sometimes it's justified to raise issues about a particular individual, but their argument should be addressed too).
- Reacting to any generalisation whatsoever with a response to the effect that they're meaningless as all individuals are different.
Yes, this is a good one. It's often used by people who disagree with a position, but can't really articulate why. Another example of the same basic strategy would be appall; some people simply behave appalled and shocked by a position without ever really articulating why that position is bad in any meaningful way. Even in cases we almost universally agree -- such as racism -- many people's response is to simply be aghast, with no explanation offered even when prompted. In some cases, I suspect many people simply can't articulate why racism (or whichever topic) is bad, and would just argue it's bad because it's bad. So instead of offering any meaningful explanation of their position, they resort to catechisms or shaming.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Who doesn't enjoy a good old argumentum ab annum?
What's funny is that, taken literally, it's just as useful as an argument against whatever change is being discussed as for it. "Sure, it's 2014, but it's not yet 2017, and that's when that change will occur. So stop trying to rush it."
Face it Tiger..
Banned
neck rolling. clapping and a disrespectful tone.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
These are the personal worst I've encountered.
When talking about a problem: "This bigger problem exists, the problem you're talking about isn't THAT bad." (Example: Oh, you think microtransactions are a big deal? Talk about first world problems!) This is so frustrating because it means we can ignore every problem except the biggest problem out there.
When making a criticism: "Well, you can't do a better job." (Example: When talking about the disappointing amount of bugs in X game, rabid defenders often bring out "you aren't a programmer!" as a way to invalidate my complaint.) Newsflash: We can no longer talk about whether or not we feel politicians are doing a good job, because we've never been a senator.
When talking about a problem: "This bigger problem exists, the problem you're talking about isn't THAT bad." (Example: Oh, you think microtransactions are a big deal? Talk about first world problems!) This is so frustrating because it means we can ignore every problem except the biggest problem out there.
When making a criticism: "Well, you can't do a better job." (Example: When talking about the disappointing amount of bugs in X game, rabid defenders often bring out "you aren't a programmer!" as a way to invalidate my complaint.) Newsflash: We can no longer talk about whether or not we feel politicians are doing a good job, because we've never been a senator.
If someone uses that analogy technique they pretty much have invalidated themselves from being able to use analogies in the future. The relation in any analogy they make at any point ever again can be polarity reversed to check for absolute phase cancellation. I have an actual chrome bookmark folder of GAF'ers who cannot in good faith use analogies anymore.
You think this is a fucking game, GAF?
You think this is a fucking game, GAF?
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.
"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.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Lucky for you.
My girlfriend just changes the argument to one where she knows she was right.
SkeptiMism
Member
That analogy one really annoys me too. I mean like, there are obviously some bad analogies too, but not everyone of them is bad just because they're not completely the same thing.
One I just experienced a couple of days ago was when I pointed out to some believer (a friend's friend) in facebook that none of the arguments against gay marriage have any logic and gave examples of why they don't make sense. Of course, I got told that yeah of course the arguments don't make any sense if you think you're the one who's always right (and obviously none of them - some of his bigoted friends showed up quickly too - actually bothered to counter any of my points). Then the person said that he doesn't want to discuss it anymore so I said ok then and stopped it. After that one of his friends said they had been writing a reply but stopped it and felt a bit sad because "the thing just wasn't as I had said" (I had linked several studies to that guy to point out that he was wrong about the claim that a child needs a woman and man to grow up well). Then the host (who's post it was) also said "yeah it's really not true, but I don't bother to deal with such provocation right now". I was polite and just stayed out of it. Maybe I should've pointed out that it's not very polite to continue after the conversation is over, but I felt like I was already naive enough to try to make sense to such a person.
But then, he said "if you want to still talk we can continue this on my twitter", so I think he might've been very aware that he wasn't being logical as he was willing to continue the arguing still but on twitter it's obviously much harder to point out the illogicality of many things because of the small size of messages.
Not really argumentative methods there though (just had to share), except perhaps discounting the other person's arguments without countering them at all but going after the person instead.
One I just experienced a couple of days ago was when I pointed out to some believer (a friend's friend) in facebook that none of the arguments against gay marriage have any logic and gave examples of why they don't make sense. Of course, I got told that yeah of course the arguments don't make any sense if you think you're the one who's always right (and obviously none of them - some of his bigoted friends showed up quickly too - actually bothered to counter any of my points). Then the person said that he doesn't want to discuss it anymore so I said ok then and stopped it. After that one of his friends said they had been writing a reply but stopped it and felt a bit sad because "the thing just wasn't as I had said" (I had linked several studies to that guy to point out that he was wrong about the claim that a child needs a woman and man to grow up well). Then the host (who's post it was) also said "yeah it's really not true, but I don't bother to deal with such provocation right now". I was polite and just stayed out of it. Maybe I should've pointed out that it's not very polite to continue after the conversation is over, but I felt like I was already naive enough to try to make sense to such a person.
But then, he said "if you want to still talk we can continue this on my twitter", so I think he might've been very aware that he wasn't being logical as he was willing to continue the arguing still but on twitter it's obviously much harder to point out the illogicality of many things because of the small size of messages.
Not really argumentative methods there though (just had to share), except perhaps discounting the other person's arguments without countering them at all but going after the person instead.
Here are two that immediately come to mind;
-"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.
Oftentimes I find that people make the claim that none of their behaviors/actions can be judged, if you haven't literally "walked in their shoes" or lived through the exact things they have. Again, I think this is false. To me some behaviors/actions have no excuses, just explanations.
Other times people use a variation of this as a defense for criticism of other people. For example, I'm sure we've probably all read a comment along the lines of "you can't judge xyz celebrity musician because you don't have a famous, money making pop album!".
Again, I don't think it's necessary to have gone through the exact same experiences as somebody else in order to make judgements of their individual actions.
-"xyz action is excused because abc people do it too!"
This one is especially annoying. People do things that are "bad" or "wrong" every day, but that doesn't mean we just start calling them "good" or "right" because they're common.
As a variation, people will try and use this to "turn the tables" onto you by pointing out a time in the past when you made a similar mistake as them, in order to now call you a hypocrite and distract from the original topic. I think that is a flawed argument, because people can learn from mistakes and just because other people make mistakes doesn't mean it's ok to continue making repeated mistakes with no effort to learn from them.
-"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.
Oftentimes I find that people make the claim that none of their behaviors/actions can be judged, if you haven't literally "walked in their shoes" or lived through the exact things they have. Again, I think this is false. To me some behaviors/actions have no excuses, just explanations.
Other times people use a variation of this as a defense for criticism of other people. For example, I'm sure we've probably all read a comment along the lines of "you can't judge xyz celebrity musician because you don't have a famous, money making pop album!".
Again, I don't think it's necessary to have gone through the exact same experiences as somebody else in order to make judgements of their individual actions.
-"xyz action is excused because abc people do it too!"
This one is especially annoying. People do things that are "bad" or "wrong" every day, but that doesn't mean we just start calling them "good" or "right" because they're common.
As a variation, people will try and use this to "turn the tables" onto you by pointing out a time in the past when you made a similar mistake as them, in order to now call you a hypocrite and distract from the original topic. I think that is a flawed argument, because people can learn from mistakes and just because other people make mistakes doesn't mean it's ok to continue making repeated mistakes with no effort to learn from them.
elrechazado
Banned
"Yeah but still"
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Nothing else signifies that someone has no interest in taking your points into consideration like "Yeah but still".
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
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.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
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.
Marvel
could never
Oh god this.
Tesseract
Banned
i gotta say, i am kinda tired of this one. too many people use it as a gotcha post to get someone dogpiled or worse, banned. outside of extreme circumstances where someone calls you something heinous, i say get properly (and respectfully) fucked with your taken offense.
stephen fry is right, please do not use offence as an argument against something or as a way to try to make people not allowed to say something. it's fucking annoying.
but that's me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked