Most annoying argument tactics

[Cheezy the Wiz]

People saying that "youre wrong" without anything to back them up.

 

[Red Door]

Sorry, but that's wrong.

 

[C~G]

Being me. Nothing else is needed, the simple fact that that panel on the left side of this post says "BasketCase" in it is enough.

There are a few users in here (most notably FriendlyFire) who automatically argue with me no matter what I post. My mere presence in a thread draws incendiary remarks.

In fact, my presence in this thread is likely to cause an argument.....

Dear BascetCase, it's not about what you say necessarily but how you say it. There's definate problems with your way of communication of your ideas to other people and it causes little bit turmoil now and then.

I'm almost sure you do it quite often...in purpose.

And no this isn't an argument as I believe you will agree with me.

 

[scy12]

Dear BascetCase, it's not about what you say necessarily but how you say it. There's definate problems with your way of communication of your ideas to other people and it causes little bit turmoil now and then.

I'm almost sure you do it quite often...in purpose.

And no this isn't an argument as I believe you will agree with me.

This will create an arguement on the basis that you are wrong. Also Equatist.

 

[BasketCase]

He misspelled my username, too.

 

[caketastydelish]

a person who only uses absolutes. ugh.

You either only use absolutes, or you're a terrorist!

 

[BasketCase]

That sounds absolutely terrifying....<BA dum bum WHIFF>

Dear BascetCase, it's not about what you say necessarily but how you say it.

Lemme tell you something about me.

I landed butt-first in college right about the time the Internet reached puberty and became The Big Thing. From that day on, I was all over Internet chat forums. Actually, I was all over Internet chat forums before the Internet was really "born"--when a 9600 baud modem was considered fast.

I was a very different person back then. Over the last fifteen years, I've grown older, wiser, more cranky, more cynical....well, basically I just gew and changed. But one thing remained constant. No matter how I approached an Internet forum discussion, the results were the same. Always. Whether it was me doing the posting or anybody else, and it made no difference how anybody else wrote their posts. People argued, flamed each other, then called each other idiots and walked away in two respective hissy fits.

So, fairly recently, I gave up worrying about it. If I type a smartass post and get somebody mad at me, that other person is a cyber-stranger I will never meet, because the types of people I enjoy meeting in real life never post on this kind of web site.

 

[C~G]

So, fairly recently, I gave up worrying about it. If I type a smartass post and get somebody mad at me, that other person is a cyber-stranger I will never meet, because the types of people I enjoy meeting in real life never post on this kind of web site.

So why do you are then asking why it creates arguments?

As I said it's your attitude that creates those situations. I kind of even see it in the way you phrase and type your message. Nothing wrong with that of course if that's your way but it's clear it can create something and sometimes even much ado about nothing.

And I'm terribly sorry I misspelled your username.

 

[BasketCase]

As I said it's your attitude that creates those situations.

When my posting approach was the complete opposite, these same situations just kept happening. The old saying about how "nice guys finish last".

And I'm terribly sorry I misspelled your username.

Admit it, you got a kick out of it. My favorites are the ones when people call me a basket case.......

 

[C~G]

When my posting approach was the complete opposite, these same situations just kept happening. The old saying about how "nice guys finish last".

Maybe you just didn't notice your earlier obnoxious behaviour.

I think tough and nice can go together and such guys definately don't finish last. Actually I believe those that can combine those qualities can excel in almost anything related to social interaction, including Internet boards and with ladies.

What I'm saying that there are more options to choose from and if you would be nice once in a while to people, it usually makes people feel more easy around you and might accept your opinions better than when you are just going straight and forgetting niceties.

Even though I like straight talking people, I think you can at least some degree to show some humility and acceptance to other people and their views. I'm not saying you're lacking those very qualities but like you admitted yourself you don't put so much weight to those kinds of things, and I can only say it shows.

Admit it, you got a kick out of it. My favorites are the ones when people call me a basket case.......

Well, ok. I did get some laughs afterwards...

I didn't notice at first because it was genuine typing error as in finnish there aren't that much use for C, so when you write english...Cs and Ks tend to mix up now and then.

 

[Ecofarm]

1) You guys REALLY need to come into compliance with the four Ch7 UNRs against you and cooperate with the international community. We offer you economic, technologic, and other incentives to do so. We are willing to supply you with fuel and help improve the efficiency of your power plants.

2) We have doubled the number of centerfuges!

I hate that technique.

 

[C~G]

1) You guys REALLY need to come into compliance with the four Ch7 UNRs against you and cooperate with the international community. We offer you economic, technologic, and other incentives to do so. We are willing to supply you with fuel and help improve the efficiency of your power plants.

2) We have doubled the number of centerfuges!

I hate that technique.

How about the one where you don't even start to argument about the subject before the other side gives up the thing what the argument is about.

 

[jeps]

most annoying argument tactic:

starting an argument; having someone (i.e. in this case me) give a long eloquent response illustrating my point of view with fact backup; and realising that you have lost the argument, so instead of rebutting with their own response, fact based or not, admitting they are wrong, or anything like that, they simply mock the person for a) putting so much effort into the argument or B) caring, or they make some comment about how you shouldnt have bothered arguing or anything to that effect.

also, i greatly dislike reductum ad hitlerum, such as the movie Expelled.

 

[punkbass2000]

That sounds absolutely terrifying....<BA dum bum WHIFF>


Lemme tell you something about me.

I landed butt-first in college right about the time the Internet reached puberty and became The Big Thing. From that day on, I was all over Internet chat forums. Actually, I was all over Internet chat forums before the Internet was really "born"--when a 9600 baud modem was considered fast.

I was a very different person back then. Over the last fifteen years, I've grown older, wiser, more cranky, more cynical....well, basically I just gew and changed. But one thing remained constant. No matter how I approached an Internet forum discussion, the results were the same. Always. Whether it was me doing the posting or anybody else, and it made no difference how anybody else wrote their posts. People argued, flamed each other, then called each other idiots and walked away in two respective hissy fits.

Same here, except I was about 12. I remember playing Warcraft 2 on 14400's. It was more Fun than it Sounds.

 

[punkbass2000]

To answer the Original Question, I find the most annoying argument tactic to be when people presume that your Ignorance on a Subject is a ploy of some kind. I get that a lot; it's like people can't believe that I don't know something.

 

[Phlegmak]

also, i greatly dislike reductum ad hitlerum, such as the movie Expelled.

Ben Stein does that A LOT. He's doing it again with another subject.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/25/beat-the-press-is-fox-trying-to-make-mccain-look-younger/

 

[MadScotsMan]

Calling people a zionist. So, damn, annoying.

 

[BasketCase]

Maybe you just didn't notice your earlier obnoxious behaviour.

Oh, I notice. Usually when I'm obnoxious, it's intentional. Most often it's when somebody insults me first. I used to be the kid who wouldn't fight back when the classroom bully threw a punch--I changed that very early on. Somebody starts hammering on me, I hit back three times as hard.

You may have seen me follow that theme in some other threads, such as terrorism threads--do the right thing, and the hell with the rules. The car accident I was in a year ago hammered that home very solidly--the policeman who investigated the accident flipped a coin to decide who to blame. A lot of the time, that's all the justice system really is.

The total court costs were like 80 bucks, so I didn't give half a crap.


Also, sometimes, I have another reason. This only works online--but it WORKS. When you're arguing against somebody and you really piss them off, they will try very, VERY hard to punch a hole in your argument. If there's a hole in your logic anywhere, they WILL find it. If they don't, you can be 100% certain your argument is solid.

No, it's not nice, and yes, it's a violation of CFC rules. Sometimes, when I want to find the truth about something, I value the truth more than the rules. WARNING: this method does NOT work in real life, because real-life arguments follow completely different rules than arguments online. (And while I have been in a few real-life arguments on politics, I have never once either seen or participated in any fisticuffs as a result of such arguments--it just never happens)

But usually when I'm obnoxious online it's just for fun (Dr. Perry Cox being my inspiration at those times)


Edit: Having seen one of those "psychology behind Batman" shows earlier today, I realized the following--there's the idea that some people are annoying in order to get attention. I don't think this is the case on Internet forums--when people crave attention, they usually get nasty in the real world.

 

[scy12]

People arguing dogmatic beliefs in an annoying arguement on it's own. However when challenged they decide to leave the arguement altogether , although it proves the self defeat of their own arguement is annoying when the other participants of the discussion trust them to atleast be well intentioned to discuss the issue and not leave. Alas.

 

[C~G]

People arguing dogmatic beliefs in an annoying arguement on it's own. However when challenged they decide to leave the arguement altogether , although it proves the self defeat of their own arguement is annoying when the other participants of the discussion trust them to atleast be well intentioned to discuss the issue and not leave. Alas.

You mean like when other one says
"Or we can avoid the subject entirely and agree to disagree but that would mean we would have wasted our time."

And all this time during whole argument the issue has been running circles of other one pointing which is obvious for him and other one stating that the obvious for him means nothing but must be backed with some hard evidence or some kind of information which in that case is impossible to provide as it is since the subject isn't about hard science and any evidence even when presented can be debated through.

So what else there is to do for the another one than just explain his view and leave if argumentation with other person just becomes very tiresome activity especially since other one offers such possiblity?

Leaving an argument isn't defeat or otherwise those that have the most hours to use or would pick every single word of another person to comment in the board would "win" every argument by Ad nauseam. I have been there sometimes in the end but that's over for me especially if the beginning isn't exactly most promising...

BasketCase (I almost misspelled it again ) I answer you later.