Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

These are not necessarily logical fallacies -- we might rephrase this as "techniques used by people who are on the losing side of an argument but who really do not want to admit it." My example:

Unrelated criticism of analogies: The point of analogies is to take two otherwise dissimilar things and show how in one particular way they are similar. Obviously, some criticisms of analogies are appropriate, particularly when you criticize that direct point of comparison. The issue arises when people pick at any dissimilarity at all, as if this disproves the analogy itself. A deliberately simplified example:

Person A: The NFL is like MLB in that both are for profit industries which may be less concerned with player misgivings if that player drives significant revenue.

Person B: Yes, but Football is a sport where you throw a ball up and down a field to score touchdowns. This is completely different than baseball, where you throw a ball to a hitter who tries to get on base.

Analogies are never intended to suggest that two things are exactly alike; they are intended to show one specific point of similarity. Many times, people will try and highlight other differences as if this ruins the analogy, which it does not.

What are your examples?

 

[NegroNinja]

Whenever my fiancée is wrong that's when she either doesn't want to talk about it anymore or it just suddenly "doesn't matter". Bunch of bullshit.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

"My parents did it to me and I turned out fine." -Physically disciplining children

 

[Alienous]

No response or a "Whatever" when one person has lost.

There's no catharsis to that.

 

[pwack]

These are not necessarily logical fallacies -- we might rephrase this as "techniques used by people who are on the losing side of an argument but who really do not want to admit it." My example:

Unrelated criticism of analogies: The point of analogies is to take two otherwise dissimilar things and show how in one particular way they are similar. Obviously, some criticisms of analogies are appropriate, particularly when you criticize that direct point of comparison. The issue arises when people pick at any dissimilarity at all, as if this disproves the analogy itself. A deliberately simplified example:

Person A: The NFL is like MLB in that both are for profit industries which may be less concerned with player misgivings if that player drives significant revenue.

Person B: Yes, but Football is a sport where you throw a ball up and down a field to score touchdowns. This is completely different than baseball, where you throw a ball to a hitter who tries to get on base.

Analogies are never intended to suggest that two things are exactly alike; they are intended to show one specific point of similarity. Many times, people will try and highlight other differences as if this ruins the analogy, which it does not.

What are your examples?

Focusing on grammer to distract from substance.

For example, your subject should be "Argumentative techniques that annoy you."

 

[OniBarubary]

People that don't understand pointing out a fallacy doesn't win you the argument. You did not prove or disprove anything just by mic dropping a fallacy.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I am not sure if all of these things are argumentative techniques as you describe them, but these are all things that absolutely annoy the hell out of me during a discussion.

People who instantly take the moral high ground so if you argue against them suddenly you are a horrible human being.

People who attack the credibility of some one rather than their statement. Likewise, people who take issue with someones tone rather than actually arguing against their point. i.e That guy is too emotional / I wish he would stop being so loud / The speaker needs to stop cursing so much

Being dismissive of an entire problem just because it doesn't affect you or you didn't have an issue with it.

 

[Ian]

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.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

"My parents did it to me and I turned out fine." -Physically disciplining children

This one makes me laugh not only because it's a prime example of anecdotal evidence, but also because it's wrong: you're advocating beating children, you clearly did not turn out fine.

 

[terrisus]

You don't throw a ball in Football, silly - you kick it.



Seriously though, any time anyone takes their own personal view/experience/etc. as a way of disproving or arguing against something else.

Sure, it can be worthwhile to bring up one's point of view/experience/etc., even if it is odd/out of the ordinary (goodness knows I do it plenty).
But just because you feel one way/think one way/experienced something one way/etc. doesn't mean everyone else did.

bring up something that you did fucking years ago that has nothing to do with the current situation

Yeah, I get that thrown at me plenty... >.>

 

[Zeppu]

"You expect me to have a source ready for every claim you disagree with?"

 

[John Kowalski]

When people aggressively refuse to acknowledge implicit meanings behind their arguments, which they almost always follow up with "where did i say/write that?" and "stop putting words in my mouth".

That and True Scotsmans.

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.

There are tons of people who will hold a grudge but who control it because it isn't worth arguing about what happened, leaving them unresolved. Then when stuff gets hard they use that chance to lay down all the stuff they never felt comfortable about. When people say stuff like "never go to sleep angry" it's because you don't want that shit coming out much later in the relationship.

 

[ppor]

See any GAF racism/sexism/homophobia thread.

Someone should create an Argumentative-Techniques-Bingo.gif

 

[Gaming Truth]

The Broken Record. One of the fundamental tennants of communication:

A discussion is discourse between two more more parties. A lecture is discourse where one talks and the other is expected to only listen.

Lectures are already annoying enough, but the OP was talking about Argumentative techniques, which assumes there's a discussion.

When you encounter the Broken Record, it's heartbreaking. It's the point when you realize you're not in a discussion, you're in a lecture. You say A, they say B. You respond to B with C. They say B. You either respond or go a different way with D. They still say B. You then realize that they never heard you say A, C, or D. They're waiting for your mouth to stop moving before they present B again.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Broken Record

 

[Steamlord]

Focusing on grammer to distract from substance.

For example, your subject should be "Argumentative techniques that annoy you."

You're wrong because you misspelled grammar.

 

[terrisus]

"You expect me to have a source ready for every claim you disagree with?"

And then they go and link a Wikipedia page.

 

[FriedConsole]

After expressing something that is clearly an opinion. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. No I don't have to prove why the color orange is the best color. Sorry if my opinion makes you question something you like to think has a clear answer like the best color is red.

"You expect me to have a source ready for every claim you disagree with?"

Sure I'll spend time Googling for sources if you site your sources on why you disagree first. You can Google and find a source that agrees with your opinion on anything so this is pretty much a waste of time.

 

[lazygecko]

Digging up unrelated years old tweets/forum posts just to nonchalantly dismiss someone.

 

[NintendoGal]

Circular arguments are the worst for me. I'm truly spinning my wheels when someone does this.

 

[genjiZERO]

Using volume and emotion, and ad hominems in sensitive subjects to sway the hive mind and avoid actual discussion. I felt this way very recently in a topic on the use of the N-word. It was so toxic I came the closest I ever have to adding a couple people to my ignore list.

 

[Opiate]

"My parents did it to me and I turned out fine." -Physically disciplining children

Yes, this is a good one. First, a lot of people who say "I turned out fine" did not turn out fine.

Or, alternatively, we can point out the vague nature of "fine." Does "fine" mean you aren't a violent criminal? Sure, very few people are suggesting that all children who are physically abused turn out to be violent criminals. There are a lot of variables that go in to raising children.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Not actually arguing the substance of the issue at hand.

Like yesterday, one of my conservative friends tried to argue against and attack a small 100 blurb I wrote on facebook. Only thing that person could say was ""Lulz""capitalism amirite" ya that's someones opinion I can trust."

 

[MegaMelon]

When people have such a short attention span that they don't process beyond the first few words of your sentence, yet will spend ages ranting about multiple things in one go.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Straight up lying. My students are wizards at this.

 

[njean777]

Ad hominem, when the person tries to twist the argument when they know they have nothing to stand on. When people start yelling and double down even though they are wrong. Red herrings that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[lazygecko]

For game related discussions (especially retro ones), using multiplatform ports to assess the inherent capabilities of a system always makes me shake my head.

 

[wildfire]

And then they go and link a Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia has been as good as an encyclopedia for years as long as it is properly sourced.

Digging up unrelated years old tweets/forum posts just to nonchalantly dismiss someone.

Nonchalantly? Every time I've seen this technique used it was done to decisively crush their opponent. I've yet to see someone do that and it wasn't related to the discussion at hand on any forum.

 

[Alx]

This one makes me laugh not only because it's a prime example of anecdotal evidence, but also because it's wrong: you're advocating beating children, you clearly did not turn out fine.

Well, that is circular reasoning which isn't better.

 

[Ian]

There are tons of people who will hold a grudge but who control it because it isn't worth arguing about what happened, leaving them unresolved. Then when stuff gets hard they use that chance to lay down all the stuff they never felt comfortable about. When people say stuff like "never go to sleep angry" it's because you don't want that shit coming out much later in the relationship.

You know, I'd never thought of it like that but that actually makes sense. Thanks.

 

[DopeToast]

I don't know what to call this, but it happened in a GAF thread and it bothered me. It was the thread about the Baltimore Ravens cheerleader who sexually assaulted a fifteen year old. The word pedophilia was being used, and when an individual corrected them and said that this was a case of ephebophilia, he got attacked by a few. The argument was that it didn't matter what they called it, it was still horrid, and that by not calling it pedophilia he was somehow lessening it or saying that ephebophilia was okay. He was not doing this at all, simply clarifying. That thread was frustrating for a lot of reasons.

 

[bjork]

I get annoyed by arguing in general. It's weird, because I used to enjoy it. I could go on IRC and argue about some unimportant thing for hours. I guess I got old?

 

[Zeppu]

Sure I'll spend time Googling for sources if you site your sources on why you disagree first. You can Google and find a source that agrees with your opinion on anything so this is pretty much a waste of time.

Meh, the burden of proof usually falls on the one making a claim not on the one disagreeing with said claim.

 

[Syph Medwes]

These are not necessarily logical fallacies -- we might rephrase this as "techniques used by people who are on the losing side of an argument but who really do not want to admit it."

they can be though, and they get old real quick:

 

[Opiate]

Focusing on grammer to distract from substance.

For example, your subject should be "Argumentative techniques that annoy you."

First, I want to defend semantic debates as a concept: there are times where it's important to be very precise with your language, and cases where the entire nature of the debate is semantic. If I think something is "disturbing" and you think it's just "unnerving," we generally agree that it is unsettling but disagree on just how unsetteling it is. That's a legitimate semantic debate.

But often, people will pick on a word on syntactical error that really doesn't change the debate meaningfully -- it's just their one final way to "win" when the main argument has clearly been lost.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

The "when x does it, it's all over the news, when y does it you never hear about it." Especially hilarious when used by right-wing fuckheads to claim that a black kid getting shot is always national headlines but a white guy getting killed by a black guy never makes it on the news.

Or, in response to some action by someone or some group, "Well x person or group did so and so." Deflection and almost always irrelevant.

 

[genjiZERO]

Overly formal "can you cite me a paper?" responses to casual subjects. I get it when the specific fact is extremely important (or in the real world), but in most forum conversations I think a brief reference to Wikipedia or saying "to the best of my knowledge" is sufficient for factual questions.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

Seriously though, any time anyone takes their own personal view/experience/etc. as a way of disproving or arguing against something else.

Sure, it can be worthwhile to bring up one's point of view/experience/etc., even if it is odd/out of the ordinary (goodness knows I do it plenty).
But just because you feel one way/think one way/experienced something one way/etc. doesn't...

This is mine. I absolutely hate when someone says crap like this. "Psht. My cousin was in Iraq and he was fine when he got back." (Friend arguing PTSD is fake).

 

[Dreamgazer]

Tone argument/call for civility.
One of the more common ad hominem attacks on GAF. Where people attempt to automatically dismiss arguments if any sense of "hostility", "seriousness" or "incivil-ness" is perceived.

"Your argument is flawed/not worth discussing, because you sound mad."

 

[FStop7]

People who are obsessed with devil's advocacy. At some point it becomes painfully obvious that they're just contrarian douchebags looking to make things about themselves.

Also, people who say dismissive shit like "calm down" in response to a perfectly level headed statement.

 

[frbrr]

People on reddit who think they know what a strawman is when in reality they don't.
But it's not like that stops them from using it to describe every argument they come across.

 

[terrisus]

Wikipedia has been as good as an encyclopedia for years as long as it is properly sourced.

"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.

 

[John Kowalski]

You know, I'd never thought of it like that but that actually makes sense. Thanks.

np bb it's all gravy

 

[MiniBossBattle]

Sarcasm / vilifying a different opinion.

 

[mantidor]

Devil's advocates for the sake of it.

Acually anyone who argues for the sake of it and not for a personal opinion or belief.

 

[nny]

Circular arguments are the worst for me. I'm truly spinning my wheels when someone does this.

But...

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

The "when x does it, it's all over the news, when y does it you never hear about it." Especially hilarious when used by right-wing fuckheads to claim that a black kid getting shot is always national headlines but a white guy getting killed by a black guy never makes it on the news.

Or, in response to some action by someone or some group, "Well x person or group did so and so." Deflection and almost always irrelevant.

My friend literally just posted this in his newsfeed regarding Bill Cosby:

Bill Clinton Is an Alleged Rapist, Too. Why Aren’t You Outraged About That?

 

[BocoDragon]

Whenever someone says "Um" at the beginning of a rebuttal.

It pretty much exists to add a little emotional spin of shaming into your point.

"Um, the answer is obvious, you halfwit".

I can't believe that people haven't figured out that getting subtly "personal" like that actually undermines their cool demenor and their point.

 

[FriedConsole]

First, I want to defend semantic debates as a concept: there are times where it's important to be very precise with your language, and cases where the entire nature of the debate is semantic. If I think something is "disturbing" and you think it's just "unnerving," we generally agree that it is unsettling but disagree on just how unsetteling it is. That's a legitimate semantic debate.

Semantic debates are boring. A word means something different to you? Who cares? Language is arbitrary.

That is another annoying argumentative technique. Change the debate to be about some usage of a word.

Spoiler

I know what I just did and I did it on purpose. Wish I could see the frustration.

 

[Calamari41]

The one that stands above the rest for me is when the other person dumbs down your stance into a strawman and continually argues against that. No matter how many times you explain yourself, or how much more deeply into detail you go, they just continue being obtuse until you give up.

 

[tokkun]

NeoGAF gaming side has a big problem with the fallacy of composition.

One group of people will make outspoken complaints: "this game looks too kiddie".
Later, another group will make a contradictory complaint: "this game looks too dark".

A conclusion is then drawn that "NeoGAF" are hypocrites.