Support NeoGAF

[cubicle47b]

My wife can be really semantic in her arguments. She also hates any kind or degree of hyperbole - intentional or otherwise - directed at her so you can almost never be literal or precise enough with your words to avoid being called extreme or dramatic.

Arguments must be presented in the form of a formal paper. No adjectives allowed.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I can't stand unnecessarily verbose argumentation. Get to the point, if there's something I don't understand I'll ask about it. There are few things as frustrating as seeing the point someone is trying to make from a mile away but you still have to listen to the whole thing. I guess this falls under the broken record mentioned earlier.

Ah, this reminds me of another technique that annoys me: complaining about the number of words used in a comment. I think your complaint about verbosity can be legitimate when a person uses more words than necessary, but sometimes someone will complain about a post because of its length, regardless of whether its length was justified. I've seen two varieties of this technique: in the first, the post is substantially dismissed (e.g., "You use a lot of words to say nothing/little"); in the second, the complaint expresses exasperation (e.g., "Ugh, now I have to get on my computer to respond to your lengthy post!"). Both are intended to belittle the person whose comment is being targeted, rather than raise any substantive points.

 

[terrisus]

The phrase "Just saying..."

I hate it.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Oh! I just remembered one.

Athletes who ask, "Did you ever play the game?" in response to criticism.

 

[Dreamgazer]

The problem is that in most circumstances uncivil responses are in fact irrational. Also, as a practical matter, uncivil discourse is unproductive to getting at the heart of the matter which is the point of debate to begin with.

If an uncivil response is irrational, then the counter argument should be stating out the irrationality. Tone arguments often serves to only derail the point onto the tone and thereby dismissing the entire discussion. In addition, the "uncivilness"/"impoliteness" of one's expression is often a matter of subjectivity. It's not uncommon on GAF to see someone say "why you mad?" when the other party then has to waste time maintaining a stance of "I'm not mad" to even continue the discussion.

Finally, some "uncivil" discourse are sometimes necessary to create the tension to have matters addressed. That's what protests and civil disobedience is suppose to achieve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Sometimes I feel like the more fallacies and poor techniques a person can identify, the more annoying they are in a debate. Because if they think you did something that wasn't a completely sound argument, you can end up spending half an hour debating the meaning of a strawman argument or an ad hominem, and the original argument never actually happens. Is there a Fallacy Fallacy for "calling out fallacies instead of entertaining the argument" or does it have a real name?

I see people sabotage themselves with this one all the time. Like:
Person A: "I think that [Controversial Claim]!"
Person B: "Actually, [long post, well cited, well argued, completely refuting A's claim]. Your claim is stupid."
Person A: "No need to call me stupid! Ad hominems undermine your whole argument!"
Person B: "That's not an ad hominem! I called your claim stupid, not you!"
Person A: "Webster's defines 'ad hominem' as..."
And et cetera.

 

[cubicle47b]

Um, what are you trying to say?

That I appreciated his post. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

[rezuth]

People who use any kind of master suppression techniques are so fucking annoying. Also hate people who try and make you feel smaller by constantly addressing you by name or belittling.

 

[Thorakai]

"Aren't there more important things to worry about?"

You have to be living under a rock to not understand that we have the capacity to deal with different problems of differing importance at the same time.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

That I appreciated his post. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Just joshing.

 

[Edwardo]

I noticed when one of my brothers argue with people, he gets frustrated and starts talking with these quick statements in short breaths. It's annoying to hear and I hate it.

Or when someone starts using a loud dumb tone of voice when they don't want to believe you.

 

[Wilsongt]

Would deflecting count here? Such as having a disagreement with someone and wanting to clear it up, but instead they will deflect or even turn the argument/disagreement around to make the othe person look like the bad guy or something.

 

[terrisus]

And et cetera.

And et cetera?

And and?

Spoiler

Just playing with you. I agree completely, that's very annoying.

 

[Shouta]

People who base broad generalizations on personal anecdotes but refuse to alter that generalization when presented with the anecdotes of others. Example:

"Every cop in my city is a racist pig."

"Really? All the ones I've met have been pretty okay."

"Personal anecdote much?"

Ideally the lesson here is that your limited experience is a poor basis for a broad generalization, but some people refuse to recognize their anecdotal "evidence" for what it is.

This one really annoys me.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Is there a Fallacy Fallacy for "calling out fallacies instead of entertaining the argument" or does it have a real name?

Non sequitur?

 

[GaimeGuy]

gish gallop.

Conservatives love it.

 

[FriedConsole]

Oh! I just remembered one.

Athletes who ask, "Did you ever play the game?" in response to criticism.

This goes with "did you finish the game" or "did you read this book". Every Libertarian whips out "have you read Atlas Shrugged?" on any discussion of Ayn Rand. I haven't read Mein Kampf to know Hitler was full of shit.

 

[Hilbert]

"of course you don't get it, you don't have children".

fuck new age parents. seriously.

The inverse of this was painfully present in that "would you have kids again" thread. What an ugly thread. And not because of the parents.

 

[spliced]

Oh man there are so many...

I notice the criticism of analogies to be especially bad on the internet for some reason.

For me I'd say just the overall desire to be contentious is the thing that annoys me the most, especially in serious situations.

Passive aggressive is just terrible. You can't make any progress in conversations when people act like this because it's basically hostile lying.

Goalpost moving. I know someone that does this almost every disagreement, it's just like an endless circle.

False equivalency. This one depends, sometimes people are trying to be fair they just don't see the mistake they're making. But sometimes they're in full scam mode and it's annoying.

It always felt so satisfying to find out that these things had terms for them and I could call people out on this stuff. Also that others know my pain in dealing with folks that consistently employ these techniques.

 

[Platy]

Talking about something that you REALLY don't know nothing about like if you were an expert.
Like "didn't read the first paragraph of wikipedia" know nothing about.

Easily found on threads about Art, Feminism and a few other subjects

 

[MoodyFog]

"Well this has been going on for a long time now, nothing new" when talking about a bad behavior of something like that

Like it becomes good because it has been bad for so long

 

[KHarvey16]

1. The point about analogies is a big one. In fact I find that almost invariably this is how analogies are received by opposing posters and then pages are spent explaining why what they're doing is silly.

2. Accusations of simply playing devil's advocate are usually wrong, buts it's also always irrelevant and often nothing more than an ad hominem.

3. I think "just asking questions," tone policing and concern trolling sort of all falls in the same category of being disengenuous. Disappointing more than anything.

4. And one that's especially popular in conspiracy topics is the "throw as much shit on the wall as I can" argument. It might even be a copy paste, but it's a sprawling, extensive list of disparate reasons and justifications and evidence that will "win" the argument for no other reason than no one is willing to trudge through all of it. It's not an argument presented in good faith.

 

[Skinpop]

Ah, this reminds me of another technique that annoys me: complaining about the number of words used in a comment. I think your complaint about verbosity can be legitimate when a person uses more words than necessary, but sometimes someone will complain about a post because of its length, regardless of whether its length was justified. I've seen two varieties of this technique: in the first, the post is substantially dismissed (e.g., "You use a lot of words to say nothing/little"); in the second, the complaint expresses exasperation (e.g., "Ugh, now I have to get on my computer to respond to your lengthy post!"). Both are intended to belittle the person whose comment is being targeted, rather than raise any substantive points.

I never complain about comment length in written text. It doesn't even bother me with overly long texts because I can skip to the relevant parts.

A face to face discussion is completely different. I probably should have specified that I meant IRL discussions.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

"Well this has been going on for a long time now, nothing new" when talking about a bad behavior of something like that

Like it becomes good because it has been bad for so long

Yeah, I hate this one. Or like when a controversial figure does a controversial thing that is in their nature, people are always like "Why are you surprised? He's always like that!"
We're not surprised by it, but it's still upsetting. Just because a guy is always racist doesn't mean we can't be upset that he was racist again.

 

[poppabk]

Veiled requests for a period where people can just get angry at an inflammatory article especially one that matches their preconceived notions before looking at it critically.

Similar to the OP, but where an analogy is used as a literal equality so as to dismiss the analogy - 'did you really just equate stealing a candy bar to rape'

 

[Madrin]

Similar to the analogy thing, when you present a hypothetical situation to make a point or explore an idea and they respond with, "Well that wouldn't happen!" or "That's not the case!" Yeah, no shit, that's why it's called a hypothetical situation.

 

[Ventilaator]

I also hate when people completely change the argument and their position just to avoid not being right.

Actual example that actually happened: A person made the claim that a GOOD movie needs to have fancy CG and a fast paced plot, because movies are visual. If it's just dudes sitting around, that's boring, and that's what books are for. I said that he not having patience for slower movies doesn't mean that those movies are bad. I had just seen My Dinner With Andre, so I said that I thought it was a very good movie, even though it's just two dudes sitting and talking.

He goes "Well, it obviously depends on the conversation they have!"

I mean, yes it does, but the original claim was that a movie like My Dinner With Andre is inherently a bad movie. Now claiming that it can be good if the conversation is good means that the person's updated position is that...good movies are good. And at that point, what the fuck are we even arguing about.

 

[The Lamp]

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

Anytime anecdotal evidence is used to try to dismantle a compiled amount of overall statistical evidence makes my eyes roll.

It's like when my friends argue that abstinence education is all that's necessary and safe sex education is unnecessary because "I didn't need it and I turned out just fine and didn't get anyone pregnant".

Yes, YOU. But stats of the overall population show that the states without safe sex education have the worst teen pregnancies and highest abortions and STD rates and just because YOU remained abstinent doesn't mean everyone else will. This is a matter of public health safety; it's not all about YOU.

 

[FLEABttn]

Ah, this reminds me of another technique that annoys me: complaining about the number of words used in a comment. I think your complaint about verbosity can be legitimate when a person uses more words than necessary, but sometimes someone will complain about a post because of its length, regardless of whether its length was justified. I've seen two varieties of this technique: in the first, the post is substantially dismissed (e.g., "You use a lot of words to say nothing/little"); in the second, the complaint expresses exasperation (e.g., "Ugh, now I have to get on my computer to respond to your lengthy post!"). Both are intended to belittle the person whose comment is being targeted, rather than raise any substantive points.

People get tired of the verbosity and Gish Gallop which then seems to lead to dismissal of long (but justifiable) posts or diatribes. Part of the problem though is that justifiable is subjective, and I'm sure the people who are using Gish Gallop and are overly verbose think they're being as long or short as they need to be.

 

[akachan ningen]

threatening to call the police
threatening to kick my ass

 

[TheKaeptain]

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.

This has been happening with one poster in the black culture thread lately. Dude's annoying.

 

[Derekloffin]

All kinds annoy me, but probably the one that I find particularly irksome is the 'I'm not bias...' or any variant. People use it all the time to try and make their point seem better than it actually is. What particularly gets me is it is inherently false. Humans can't escape bias. You can combat it and minimize it, but you can't get rid of it. In fact, the mere fact that you made a choice or conclusion on something is itself a bias.

Another I've seen several times is the argument 'it's a slippery slope' not used to critic an argument, but the argument itself. I just find it silly as they are pointing out their own logical flaw without even realizing it. Fortunately, I've only seen this a few times, but always gets me laughing when they do.

Edit:

Oh, one other thing I've been noticing a lot lately is a weird variant of Straw man. This is where person X makes a pretty straight straw man position, then person Y steps into the argument on the other side, but instead of disputing the straw man, goes right along for the ride. Person X is bad enough, but person Y... you're terrible. Either you believe the straw man position and thus are a nut job, or you are just foolish and muddying up the waters of the debate for the rest of your side by making your side by looking like a bunch of nut jobs. Please be very careful stepping into a debate on one side to know your actual side.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

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.

I'm sowwy....I do this ALL the time. I'm obsessed with trying to see things from as many sides as possible, but I do technically have a personal stance. I just like to argue as many sides as a way of brainstorming and exhausting all avenues of discussion. I know I'm annoying, but I can't help it.

 

[genjiZERO]

If an uncivil response is irrational, then the counter argument should be stating out the irrationality. Tone arguments often serves to only derail the point onto the tone and thereby dismissing the entire discussion. In addition, the "uncivilness"/"impoliteness" of one's expression is often a matter of subjectivity. It's not uncommon on GAF to see someone say "why you mad?" when the other party then has to waste time maintaining a stance of "I'm not mad" to even continue the discussion.

Finally, some "uncivil" discourse are sometimes necessary to create the tension to have matters addressed. That's what protests and civil disobedience is suppose to achieve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail

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.

 

[Akuun]

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

I always called that the bulldozer approach to arguing.

 

[mantidor]

I'm sowwy....I do this ALL the time. I'm obsessed with trying to see things from as many sides as possible, but I do technically have a personal stance. I just like to argue as many sides as a way if brainstorming and exhausting all avenues of discussion. I know I'm annoying, but I can't help it.

Ha!

Now that I think about it that isn't a technique per se, just a pet peeve of mine.

 

[terrisus]

For what it's worth, I pick at grammar/spelling/syntax a whole bunch... but, it's not really intended to negate an argument or anything... it's just what I do >.>

 

[BannedEpisode]

For what it's worth, I pick at grammar/spelling/syntax a whole bunch... but, it's not really intended to negate an argument or anything... it's just what I do >.>

Most people are very aware.

 

[Empty]

i really dislike line by line rebuttals. they have a purpose in their use, sometimes you need to drill down on specific elements of an argument to unpack why you disagree with it and a good argument should be supported by solid foundations, but way too often i find they substitute coherent and good faith responses for tedious, smug pedantry that misses the forest for the trees.

 

[MrBadger]

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

I find that the people who say this tend to be bigger assholes in discussions, saying things like "kids these days are all little shits, parents should beat them", etc. I wonder if there's a direct relation there.

 

[poppabk]

The idea of 'sides' that you have to pick or be placed on, especially when you are then responsible for what other people on your side say.
Especially in internet discussions, picking the lowest hanging fruit to argue against.

 

[NekoFever]

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.

I hate this too. Show them why they're wrong; don't just show everyone that you read a list of logical fallacies on the Internet.

Also anyone who begins their refutation with "Wrong." or "False."

 

[Brannon]

I really despise the need for someone to always play the contrarian no matter the topic. The "Well to be fair Hitler did kill millions of people but he also did good for Germany. The world is not black and white!" type of bullshit that people bring up start in order to side track or start an entirely new argument that no one gives a flying fuck about. Also goes along with people attempting to "troll" arguments and there are a number of people on here who do that for every.single.fucking.argument

Well to be fair Hitler did sacrifice his life to kill the guy responsible for the holocaust, which ultimately did good for Germany. The world is not black and white!












Okay that was bad, I'm sorry

 

[a916]

This typical conversation with any sports fan:

A: That player on your favorite team is really struggling this year, his point total is down and he's getting swamped defensively...

B: OH YEAH, YOUR TEAM SUCKS! EVERYBODY SUCKS ON YOUR TEAM!

A: ....

Spoiler

(I don't get why people feel the need to drag Team A into a conversation about team B as a way to defend their favorite team)

 

[Jonm1010]

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.

Yes and No.

If an argument contains a fallacy but is otherwise a foundationly strong argument then yes, that's true. But if the entire argument is resting upon a fallacious premise then the argument isn't really able to stand on its own and thus pointing out the fallacy does pretty much disqualify their argument.

Joe says A and cites B,C and D to support his argument.

Steve says Joe failed Algebra and probably doesn't know what he is talking about. Is stupid.

Joe tells Steve that is a red Herring and Ad hominem attack.

What else can really be said there?

 

[Ahasverus]

"Anyone could think anything about anything, so your opinion sounds valid but it's not really appliable to reality". Yes, fuck me.

 

[Fevaweva]

Lets see YOU do better!

 

[phisheep]

The idea of 'sides' that you have to pick or be placed on, especially when you are then responsible for what other people on your side say.
Especially in internet discussions, picking the lowest hanging fruit to argue against.

This. Plus, the idea that arguments are there to won or lost in some sort of objective sense rather than, say, to explore and maybe influence each other's point of view.

Oh, and the whole false dichotomy of whether something is objective (with the subtext that it be be absolute and absolutely the same at all times and in all places and that therefore anyone with a different cultural/temporal/geographical background from the protagonist must be wrong) or is subjective (subtext here that there is no room for argument about subjective things because they are personal and based around choice and entirely uninfluenced by, say, culture or the company that you keep).

Also, long sentences with parentheses.

 

[terrisus]

This typical conversation with any sports fan:

A: That player on your favorite team is really struggling this year, his point total is down and he's getting swamped defensively...

B: OH YEAH, YOUR TEAM SUCKS! EVERYBODY SUCKS ON YOUR TEAM!

A: ....

Spoiler

(I don't get why people feel the need to drag Team A into a conversation about team B as a way to defend their favorite team)

Of course, the same happens in this way too:

A: That player on your favorite team really isn't as good as you make him out to be. There are better players, and having him instead of someone else makes the team less than it otherwise would be.

B: COUNT THE RINGS, BABY!!!!

 

[terrisus]

Oh, and the whole false dichotomy of whether something is objective (with the subtext that it be be absolute and absolutely the same at all times and in all places and that therefore anyone with a different cultural/temporal/geographical background from the protagonist must be wrong) or is subjective (subtext here that there is no room for argument about subjective things because they are personal and based around choice and entirely uninfluenced by, say, culture or the company that you keep).

Also, long sentences with parentheses.

It's funny you mention that, since before I even got to that sentence, I had to make a couple of passes at the previous sentence to attempt to parse it.

Spoiler

(I do that too. Sometimes also including hyphens).