MoodyFog
Member
Why so serious?
Argumentative techniques which annoy you
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
- Status
Why so serious?
DigitalDevil
Member
He's just salty
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I was really getting at where the arguer doesn't have evidence in favour of his view (but could still be right, assuming that there is evidence out there somewhere). I should of course have completed that by adding "provided there isn't any evidence against it".
Mighty Chin
Banned
People who equate Physical Discipline with Beating your child bothers me.
Oh, this same thing framed slightly differently: being right for the wrong reasons, and not recognizing why that doesn't then prove the people wrong who argued the other way (or, likewise, validate your reasoning).
In the dice example, given everything you just said, a person who said it would be a 2 because that number was "due" sees the result and declares that your method was invalid and their reasoning was sound. Unfortunately I feel like arguing against this would be met mostly with the "can't you just let it go" technique described earlier.
Twilight Gap
Member
i'm guilty of avoiding admitting when i word something wrong even when i meant it in the way the person corrected me said. i feel like the admission makes people stop reading sooner because they no longer think what i have to say is valid. unfortunately, it tends to derail the discussion instead of keep them focused on the original point. so reading over posts where i've done this annoys me.
for other discussions, it annoys me when people think the topic is "trivial", therefore the only thing that matters is their own opinion or whether they find it "fun" or not. very common with consumable media, which makes it difficult at times to share and explore critical topics.
i've said it in response to posts of the drive by nature. it makes sense when it follows the kind of thing that'd make a room go quiet.
passive aggressive stuff in general can be annoying though, like ending a statement with a question mark or an "oh".
for other discussions, it annoys me when people think the topic is "trivial", therefore the only thing that matters is their own opinion or whether they find it "fun" or not. very common with consumable media, which makes it difficult at times to share and explore critical topics.
i've said it in response to posts of the drive by nature. it makes sense when it follows the kind of thing that'd make a room go quiet.
passive aggressive stuff in general can be annoying though, like ending a statement with a question mark or an "oh".
ersocaster
Member
I was not really saying that I was right because I learned it in class. My mistake. I learned it in class, yes, but I also noted that the class's position was supported by evidence in favor of agile/iterative development.
I never said that iterative was better all the time either. There are use cases for both methods - there are just more for iterative right now.
Look: http://scottambler.com/lean-and-agile-software-development-is-more-successful-than-waterfall.html
Edit: I saw your response about an expert in the face of opposing evidence. I generally agree.
hydrophilic attack
Member
My w/l ratio for arguments on GAF is about 3.2
JinjoUnchained
Member
"[Object X] is shit"
....
aaaannddd that's the whole post/argument.
Always derails the discussion because it gives no contextual basis to agree or disagree. So people just start piling on and no one knows what anyone else is talking about. I call these out when I see them.
Another one is attacking the intelligence of someone you are debating with, as in they post, you post, then they reply with "Don't you know about such-and-such?"; implying that only someone less informed than them would disagree. I HATE those people, even when we're on the same side and they're doing it to someone else. You can still use "such-and-such" in your argument without assuming the other person doesn't know it and is therefore stupid, Is there a name for that annoying technique?
....
aaaannddd that's the whole post/argument.
Always derails the discussion because it gives no contextual basis to agree or disagree. So people just start piling on and no one knows what anyone else is talking about. I call these out when I see them.
Another one is attacking the intelligence of someone you are debating with, as in they post, you post, then they reply with "Don't you know about such-and-such?"; implying that only someone less informed than them would disagree. I HATE those people, even when we're on the same side and they're doing it to someone else. You can still use "such-and-such" in your argument without assuming the other person doesn't know it and is therefore stupid, Is there a name for that annoying technique?
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Come to think of it, there is this thing some people do: constantly demand explanations for things they're not interested in having explanations for. I was once acquainted with a guy who expressed vague outrage at everything all the time, usually started the conversation, but wasn't really interested in having a discussion. Just fishing for anyone to agree that X is stupid and annoying and don't we all hate it.
It's that thing that gets to me, people who cannot have an actual discussion and only act as if they want one, because they're seeking validation and don't care about coming to a better understanding.
It's that thing that gets to me, people who cannot have an actual discussion and only act as if they want one, because they're seeking validation and don't care about coming to a better understanding.
terrisus
Member
It also kind of goes back to something that I mentioned earlier:
Not exactly the same thing, I know... But, it's like, I knew that was the article that the person I originally replied to was thinking of, so I made a point of pointing out that there were a whole host of things that had nothing to do with that which I was taking issue with, not mentioning that at all... And then someone else comes along and posts that article as some sort of "Aha! This article is about Wikipedia being better than something in something! Gotcha!"
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I forgot one of my favorite ones - "why do you always have to be right."
Eg
"You did X"
"No I didn't"
"yes you did"
"No I didn't, I distinctly remember not doing it, and here is the evidence to prove it"
"why do you always have to be right "
It's always expressed as if being right is a bad thing and the actual truth is unimportant as long as a subjective 'truth' can be agreed upon.
Eg
"You did X"
"No I didn't"
"yes you did"
"No I didn't, I distinctly remember not doing it, and here is the evidence to prove it"
"why do you always have to be right "
It's always expressed as if being right is a bad thing and the actual truth is unimportant as long as a subjective 'truth' can be agreed upon.
Earthstrike
Member
Are you including assists where someone else was the primary arguee and you simply backed them up in your ratio?
terrisus
Member
GAF dogpiles are an easy w/l booster.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
Saw the dictionary with pronunciation argument the other day in a thread here. Always a blast to see a copy paste from a dictionary as a snarky response. Effective.
The calm down people are also the ones likely to interrupt you repeatedly so you can't finish a sentence.
Lord British
Member
Ad hominem.
I know you two are joking, but the old Bungie forums were terrible for this. Good luck trying to jump into a competitive discussion thread with anything below a 2.0 K/D and 90% W/L. The Optimatch (I believe that was what an old Bungie forum was called) and game specific forums were just an exclusive clubhouse for the kool kids.
people who disclaim (usually stupid) stuff with "well thats just my opinion and i'm entitled to it" or something similar about how they can have their opinion on this subject and there's nothing you can do to change it no matter how much evidence you have or whatever. it's just annoying behavior on its own, but it's also just a really childish way of killing discussion.
like they know that their "opinion" is wrong, they'd just rather keep believing what they've believed in all along rather than change anything, and because they know it's wrong they have to disclaim it.
like they know that their "opinion" is wrong, they'd just rather keep believing what they've believed in all along rather than change anything, and because they know it's wrong they have to disclaim it.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
This is probably the one that anoys me the most. It is so often used too. Some are pretty quick at throwing the different opinions card.
There's also that image of the angel that comes from heaven holding a note that says ok. Why discuss anything?
hydrophilic attack
Member
I don't think arguments are always as binary as we would like them to be.
A discussion will not necessarily end up in one side "winning" the debate, only for the other person not to admit defeat because of stubbornness.
There have been several times where i straight out admitted i was wrong, even after a long discussion, because the arguments presented to me, convinced me of that point, and changed my position.
There have been other times, where i've seen two people argue, siding with one at the start, but ending up on the other side of the fence by the end (even without participating in the actual debate) because of the reason mentioned above.
HOWEVER, there have been also times where i felt like i was simply not able to make my point as well as i wanted, whether because of external conditions (an hostile environment for example) or simply because i lacked the ability and acumen to do so, but at the same time i could not be convinced of the opposing point of view.
In those cases it wouldn't have been honest nor genuine at all, to admit i had changed my mind on the subject, as my "defeat" was mostly of my oratory and debate abilities, not of my core position (that i failed to represent well enough).
I do try, though, not to resort to any bullshit method to just win an argument, as that's pretty shallow and lame.
A discussion will not necessarily end up in one side "winning" the debate, only for the other person not to admit defeat because of stubbornness.
There have been several times where i straight out admitted i was wrong, even after a long discussion, because the arguments presented to me, convinced me of that point, and changed my position.
There have been other times, where i've seen two people argue, siding with one at the start, but ending up on the other side of the fence by the end (even without participating in the actual debate) because of the reason mentioned above.
HOWEVER, there have been also times where i felt like i was simply not able to make my point as well as i wanted, whether because of external conditions (an hostile environment for example) or simply because i lacked the ability and acumen to do so, but at the same time i could not be convinced of the opposing point of view.
In those cases it wouldn't have been honest nor genuine at all, to admit i had changed my mind on the subject, as my "defeat" was mostly of my oratory and debate abilities, not of my core position (that i failed to represent well enough).
I do try, though, not to resort to any bullshit method to just win an argument, as that's pretty shallow and lame.
CyclopsRock
Member
People who are so sarcastic that you genuinely don't know what they actually mean anymore.
When people really go out of their way to try and paint someone as a hypocrite by using wild interpretations of what they've said, because someone being a hypocrite is basically insta-lose.
When people really go out of their way to try and paint someone as a hypocrite by using wild interpretations of what they've said, because someone being a hypocrite is basically insta-lose.
Myths
Member
Exactly what I said above! These statements lead to nowhere, other than the person doing it out of sheer ambiguity or evasion so they'll never have to admit being incorrect about something otherwise factual in the real world. The most annoying part is trying to stretch the definition of a term or making up stuff on-the-fly.
"X, Y, and Z means this to me..."
It's all over once that happens.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Perhaps the point wasn't quite as astute as you thought?
Mango The Magician
Banned
-Trying to link a topic to another topic, in some sad attempt to shame the other side. "Oh what's that? You don't agree with changing a character who's older than you, that you care tremendously for into something said character isn't? You obviously must be sexist/racist or something like that." I mean I can deal with the people that just run out and say it, but the ones who try to scoot around saying anything, but are still very clearly accusing you of something that's usually quite bigger than the topic it's in will ever be, piss me off.
-It usually ties into the first one, at least occasionally, but the "i'm better than you" stance, that arguments take occasionally.
-and finally, the "this shouldn't matter to you or anyone, it's not a big deal, you're overreacting!" stance, I mean you're not me, you're not a collective hive mind of everyone who isn't me, thus you don't determine what is or isn't a big deal.
-It usually ties into the first one, at least occasionally, but the "i'm better than you" stance, that arguments take occasionally.
-and finally, the "this shouldn't matter to you or anyone, it's not a big deal, you're overreacting!" stance, I mean you're not me, you're not a collective hive mind of everyone who isn't me, thus you don't determine what is or isn't a big deal.
I have a bunch that I have wanted to get off my chest.
A lot of time, people will put 'big-' in front of something to make it immediately scary. Big-agri, big-oil, big-pharma, big-whatever. They do this to give strength to arguments that sometimes don't need additional help or sometimes do - and I don't know what annoys me more. Sometimes it's like "big-pharma would just love it if you used vaccines!" And the use of big-pharma is annoying, but the core argument against vaccines is dumb anyway. Sometimes it's like "oh we all know about big-pharmas manipulative ways and their constant unethical lobbying, these giant corporations are ruining the world" - and it's frustrating because there is a nugget of a good point (pharmaceutical companies and unethical lobbying practices) but it's mired in all this gunk that is unnecessarily trying to create a boogeyman, that it ends up making me respect the position less. I guess that's better than combining it with nonsense, but it annoys me because it's a missed opportunity.
Another big one for me isn't an argumentative technique exactly, but I think a problem I see when it comes to social issues in general. People tend to want to blame someone, something, some entity for social issues and they end up doing so so vehemently they alienate some group. I need to preface this example by saying that I think Feminism is -wonderful- and we could do with many more strong, empowered, feminist leaders of all genders. That said, too often I see people in feminism threads miss out on great opportunities to bring 'fence sitters' into the fold by refusing to be diplomatic. A more specific example is I remember a few threads where the topic of male-related issues has come up, and people will say things like "Well it's all the fault of Patriarchy anyway, so what we need is more feminism" - not realizing that this doesn't help make feminism seem more attractive. Some even go so far as to say that because these issues are the fault of patriarchy, that men shouldn't have male-oriented support. I mean... on some level, there are nuggets of truth there (specifically about a lot of issues men have are the result of cultural stigmas that came about from male dominated societies) but for that fence sitter coming in, sometimes with their own issues, they are immediately made to feel as though Feminism is this thing that is out to get them and somehow blame them for their own problems. Often times people do this well meaningly, and other times not so much, but it happens with all sorts of social issues. Rather than discuss and support and even try to subtly change the minds of people who still have minds that can be changed, people push them away SOOO violently, I worry they are creating enemies where there weren't any before.
A lot of time, people will put 'big-' in front of something to make it immediately scary. Big-agri, big-oil, big-pharma, big-whatever. They do this to give strength to arguments that sometimes don't need additional help or sometimes do - and I don't know what annoys me more. Sometimes it's like "big-pharma would just love it if you used vaccines!" And the use of big-pharma is annoying, but the core argument against vaccines is dumb anyway. Sometimes it's like "oh we all know about big-pharmas manipulative ways and their constant unethical lobbying, these giant corporations are ruining the world" - and it's frustrating because there is a nugget of a good point (pharmaceutical companies and unethical lobbying practices) but it's mired in all this gunk that is unnecessarily trying to create a boogeyman, that it ends up making me respect the position less. I guess that's better than combining it with nonsense, but it annoys me because it's a missed opportunity.
Another big one for me isn't an argumentative technique exactly, but I think a problem I see when it comes to social issues in general. People tend to want to blame someone, something, some entity for social issues and they end up doing so so vehemently they alienate some group. I need to preface this example by saying that I think Feminism is -wonderful- and we could do with many more strong, empowered, feminist leaders of all genders. That said, too often I see people in feminism threads miss out on great opportunities to bring 'fence sitters' into the fold by refusing to be diplomatic. A more specific example is I remember a few threads where the topic of male-related issues has come up, and people will say things like "Well it's all the fault of Patriarchy anyway, so what we need is more feminism" - not realizing that this doesn't help make feminism seem more attractive. Some even go so far as to say that because these issues are the fault of patriarchy, that men shouldn't have male-oriented support. I mean... on some level, there are nuggets of truth there (specifically about a lot of issues men have are the result of cultural stigmas that came about from male dominated societies) but for that fence sitter coming in, sometimes with their own issues, they are immediately made to feel as though Feminism is this thing that is out to get them and somehow blame them for their own problems. Often times people do this well meaningly, and other times not so much, but it happens with all sorts of social issues. Rather than discuss and support and even try to subtly change the minds of people who still have minds that can be changed, people push them away SOOO violently, I worry they are creating enemies where there weren't any before.
oreomunsta
Banned
It's a little opposite to what OP intended, but I LOVE using Socratic questioning on other people, and it gets them mad. My ex countered this, though, with the infamous "Whatever..." - that killjoy =/
Karsticles
Member
Actually, Opiate, I think the one you listed might be the most annoying.
Derekloffin
Member
That in itself is a logical fallacy, aka fallacy fallacy, that is because an argument that is faulty the conclusion is not necessarily wrong. Logical fallacies show instead that the argument isn't proof, not that the conclusion is incorrect. For instance:
Person A: My cousin knows math, and he says 1 + 1 = 2.
Person B: BS, your cousin is only barely old enough to talk and knows nothing of math. That's a faulty authority, so clearly you are wrong.
...
A great example of this is proof by authority. Many people interpret proof by authority to mean someone is claiming to be an authority when they really aren't, but actually proof by authority applies even to the most knowledgeable and appropriate authorities that exist. Them simply stating something is true does not proof it is true. All it does is provide evidence of it being true (hence why when an expert witness says X is so in a court, we don't just declare judgement right then, the other side gets to present counter evidence). Nonetheless, proof by authority is evidence that whatever is being claimed is so. How strong that evidence is depends on the credibility of the authority, but never reaches the point of certainty.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
oh god, yes.
Yaphett Kotto
Member
Anytime someone retorts to "well, that's your opinion" whenever they have no other way to defend their argument.
Just admit you are wrong or that you agree, etc., holy shit.
Just admit you are wrong or that you agree, etc., holy shit.
shadowsdarknes
Member
When someone is letting their personal feelings towards a person affect their response to something.
So then they take something that shouldn't be controversial and throw something back that is completely unwarranted.
"I think gay people should be allowed to marry each other. It's about equal rights."
Response:
"Speaking of equal rights, you support baby killing! Who has equal rights there?!"
face_palm
So then they take something that shouldn't be controversial and throw something back that is completely unwarranted.
"I think gay people should be allowed to marry each other. It's about equal rights."
Response:
"Speaking of equal rights, you support baby killing! Who has equal rights there?!"
face_palm
This sums up my feelings about this particular kind of feminist exactly. It makes no sense.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Big-Feminism is out of control.
It's just an analogy that is intentionally a bit obscure because I quite desperately wanted to sound intelligent to Opiate. I felt like if I posted what I did, I might get crowned as king of the mods and Evilore would give me a million dollars to travel around the world with him. I'm still holding out hope.
If you are familiar with trigonometry, think about a periodic waveform like a wine wave. If you reverse/invert it's polarity (that is, multiply it by -1) and then add the original waveform to the polarity reversed/inverted waveform, they cancel each other out perfectly and you get zero. One way to check whether or not two waveforms are perfect duplicates of each other is to invert polarity on one and check that the sum of both waveforms is zero. I was comparing the source and target in an analogy to two waveforms, which under the argumentative technique in question would be required to sum to 0, for the analogy to be worthwhile.
Balanced audio cables use this to cancel out line noise picked up along the length of the cable. There are two wires both transmitting the exact same signal, but one cable is polarity inverted before transmission. Any noise is picked up on both wires. Then polarity is switched on one of the 2 wires at the receiving end. This effectively cancels out noise between the two wires.
Edit: "phase cancel" may or may not be incorrect terminology, depending on how you are thinking about it.
I really dislike, and I'm only saying this because I've seen it on this forum, people who present a factual statement as an opinion. This seems like something the person is usually unaware of, it's more of a subconscious reaction to being proven factually wrong a lot and reading arguments where someone "gets away" by saying something is a matter of unchangable opinion, leading to statements like "weapon X deals less damage than weapon Y per strike IMO".
Strawman arguments are the worst. It really zaps my energy and patience when I have to argue an essential non-factor issue because otherwise some fool wants to render my opinion invalid. I used to refer to this as selective reading but I sometimes think it's done purposely just to save face.
Passive Aggressiveness is another. If you have a problem with someone/thing, please speak up or just shut up. Don't pretend you don't care.
Accusations of ulterior motives aka accusing people of baiting. Jfc, if someone outs themself as something undesirable, that's no one's fault. It's who they are. No one can make anyone do anything they don't want to.
Tone policing. The moment you start accusing people of giving off a tone (over the internet. I mean really, wtf how can you tell lol) and claiming that invalidates them, you've already made the debate into a waste of time. This also goes along with trying to get emotional responses out of others. That's pretty scary tbh. Anyone who gets a kick out of stressing people out and "winning" really needs to reevaluate themselves. That's alarming behavior.
Arguing to win is very pitiful. People are people, and if they make blunders, big deal. I don't understand why so many are eager to grasp at straws for the sake of a victory. If you so much as get two people debating that come to an agreement or understanding of one another's argument, that's a victory too.
"Aren't there more important issues to worry about?" If you're talking about something petty like debating which tv show has better entertainment, sure, that makes sense, but anything about Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc is always relevant and important. Don't ever think otherwise.
Passive Aggressiveness is another. If you have a problem with someone/thing, please speak up or just shut up. Don't pretend you don't care.
Accusations of ulterior motives aka accusing people of baiting. Jfc, if someone outs themself as something undesirable, that's no one's fault. It's who they are. No one can make anyone do anything they don't want to.
Tone policing. The moment you start accusing people of giving off a tone (over the internet. I mean really, wtf how can you tell lol) and claiming that invalidates them, you've already made the debate into a waste of time. This also goes along with trying to get emotional responses out of others. That's pretty scary tbh. Anyone who gets a kick out of stressing people out and "winning" really needs to reevaluate themselves. That's alarming behavior.
Arguing to win is very pitiful. People are people, and if they make blunders, big deal. I don't understand why so many are eager to grasp at straws for the sake of a victory. If you so much as get two people debating that come to an agreement or understanding of one another's argument, that's a victory too.
"Aren't there more important issues to worry about?" If you're talking about something petty like debating which tv show has better entertainment, sure, that makes sense, but anything about Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc is always relevant and important. Don't ever think otherwise.
Tempesta di Fuoco
Banned
I know you are but what am I
Tempesta di Fuoco
Banned
This is actually true for me. My parents physically disciplined me and I turned out fine.
That said, I do not condone physical discipline because of the millions of people who remain fucked up because of it for the rest of their lives. And what my parents did was wrong. I turned out fine, but my older siblings are FUCKED UP
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
This type of argument drives me crazy. Anyone that works in IT or troubleshooting has encountered this as well. Well no one else I know is having this issue so obviously my device is broken. Template matching arguements are the worst. As if one example with tons of miscellaneous contributing variables will apply to every other person.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked