Most annoying argument tactics

[scy12]

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.

If a book , or generally a subject needs closure that does not mean you can end it right there with no conclusion because it was the moment to close it and couldn't expand the main subject any more..

And closure was one of the available option. Others included , a request at providing more information over a subject.

I mentioned the solution for a conclusion but you chose to ignore the subject and the efforts of your cospeaker , the persons you where discussing with unanswered. And that is annoying. And impolite.

And that is a general statement not only addressed to you. If i am discussing with someone and he just leaves the discussion (While still be in the forum) without providing a response , that is impolite and annoying. Not only because it is impolite and annoying to me , this is just the characterization of that behavior.

Leaving an argument isn't defeat

Having a dogmatic arguement is a defeat.

 

[warpus]

Does this count?

 

[C~G]

If a book , or generally a subject needs closure that does not mean you can end it right there with no conclusion because it was the moment to close it and couldn't expand the main subject any more..

I can only tell you that I didn't have a clue what we were actually talking about even in the end (like cowboys and indians with wagon circle between them) and then you start your next message with "what you are talking about?".

And closure was one of the available option. Others included , a request at providing more information over a subject.

Closure my bottom.

If I want to leave completely unfruitful discussion (probably even to both sides), I will when I decide so.

I provided the solution for a conclusion but you chose to ignore the subject and the efforts of your cospeaker , the persons you where discussing with unanswered. And that is annoying. And impolite.

And continuing arguing that other's presented point is just his dogmatic opinion and lack of information makes it difficult anything but object EVERYTHING other one is saying is non-annoying and very polite method of discussion?

And that is a general statement not only addressed to you. If i am discussing with someone and he just leaves the discussion (While still be in the forum) without providing a response , that is impolite and annoying.

I did say "have a nice day". What do you want? Medal or should I just give up and say you're right about everything when I'm just too tired of trying to communicate with the other person?

Having a dogmatic arguement is a defeat.

And who decides what's dogmatic and what's not? You?

It's more like claiming another one's opinion being dogmatic ends a discussion.

Believe me when I say that we were in all different channels back there and it would have lead us nowhere even if I would have decided to continue "the argument". For me your answer was similar to that of someone else's in the thread even though much longer one and I act based into the believe where it would lead the discussion: into nothing.

I'm sorry if you got offended by it, it wasn't that I thought my thoughts were so better than yours just that yours were so badly off from the mark from the start.

 

[scy12]

I can only tell you that I didn't have a clue what we were actually talking about even in the end (like cowboys and indians with wagon circle between them) and then you start your next message with "what you are talking about?".
Closure my bottom.

If I want to leave completely unfruitful discussion (probably even to both sides), I will when I decide so.
And continuing arguing that other's presented point is just his dogmatic opinion and lack of information makes it difficult anything but object EVERYTHING other one is saying is non-annoying and very polite method of discussion?
I did say "have a nice day". What do you want? Medal or should I just give up and say you're right about everything when I'm just too tired of trying to communicate with the other person?
And who decides what's dogmatic and what's not? You?

It's more like claiming another one's opinion being dogmatic ends a discussion.

Believe me when I say that we were in all different channels back there and it would have lead us nowhere even if I would have decided to continue "the argument". For me your answer was similar to that of someone else's in the thread even though much longer one and I act based into the believe where it would lead the discussion: into nothing.

I'm sorry if you got offended by it, it wasn't that I thought my thoughts were so better than yours just that yours were so badly off from the mark from the start.

I can only tell you that I didn't have a clue what we were actually talking about even in the end (like cowboys and indians with wagon circle between them) and then you start your next message with "what you are talking about?".

The feeling was mutual.

Closure my bottom.

Well you are free to be a Jackass and i am free to blame jackass behavior. It seems your response here is the one which unnecessary.

If I want to leave completely unfruitful discussion (probably even to both sides), I will when I decide so.
And continuing arguing that other's presented point is just his dogmatic opinion and lack of information makes it difficult anything but object EVERYTHING other one is saying is non-annoying and very polite method of discussion?
I did say "have a nice day". What do you want? Medal or should I just give up and say you're right about everything when I'm just too tired of trying to communicate with the other person?

Well i didn't want nothing more rather than an answer.Now in that answer you could tell me that i suck but it would still be an answer.

I don't claim you don't have the freedom to act as you please. I claim that all actions are going to be criticized as others please.

If i didn't get that answer i would not feel bad i would just characterize , feel something over the behavior of the other person.

So what is your problem , now again ? This arguement is even more pointless than the last one.

And who decides what's dogmatic and what's not? You?

The one who makes the arguement decides to make it dogmatic. As for if i can judge whether something is dogmatic my answer is , what is wrong with you ?

A dogmatic arguement is an arguement that claims to be the definitive answer over something while not preventing any evidence to support this and denying any other evidence as being able to ever make it proven as wrong.

Anyway this " And who decides what's dogmatic and what's not? You?" was such an atrocious comment that i realize that i should have provided closure to our "Argument" far sooner as you where dogmatic from the start to the end.

It's more like claiming another one's opinion being dogmatic ends a discussion.

Not if you request him to present evidence and to expand the discussion in any way so that his position are not dogmatic any more.

Believe me when I say that we were in all different channels back there and it would have lead us nowhere even if I would have decided to continue "the argument".

True. But you may actually had a worthy piece of information hidden inside what you actually showed to me

Anyway i don't claim that your position that you have not shown to me to be dogmatic or wrong. I claim the position you showed to me to be
dogmatic.


.

For me your answer was similar to that of someone else's in the thread even though much longer one and I act based into the believe where it would lead the discussion: into nothing.

How can i lead something that does not exist into nothing ?

I'm sorry if you got offended by it, it wasn't that I thought my thoughts were so better than yours just that yours were so badly off from the mark from the start.

I was not offended over what you thought ,that your or my thoughts where worth but by the fact you did not answer my post.

If you answer , with so what ? My answer is why the hell you ask the so what ? I did not make a complaint to you. I made a general complaint against this annoying behavior.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Double standards. I know people who are like "I'm so holier than thou that I can do nasty things, but if you do the same things, you're a dirty decript (sp) rat."

Strange.

 

[C~G]

The feeling was mutual.

Yes, exactly.

We weren't getting anywhere and it would have probably continued so I decided to let it go. Actually I though I had made it clear in my last message but I thought wrong.

If you answer , with so what ? My answer is why the hell you ask the so what ? I did not make a complaint to you. I made a general complaint against this annoying behavior.

Please, be honest here. It is obvious this complaint was inspired by our discussion so I decided to answer you since I didn't know this was such a big problem for you.

Of course,...since you seem to be genuinely upset of my behaviour earlier I can look again your message in the other thread and maybe answer to it some later time. But I cannot promise you anything or tell does it really lead us anything better...

Thing is that sometimes people's views and also style of communication differ so much that any discussion between them is if not impossible then at least very cumbersome. It has happened me to before even on this board (will not name any names) and the results aren't pretty.

 

[scy12]

Yes, exactly.

We weren't getting anywhere and it would have probably continued so I decided to let it go. Actually I though I had made it clear in my last message but I thought wrong.
Please, be honest here. It is obvious this complaint was inspired by our discussion so I decided to answer you since I didn't know this was such a big problem for you.

Of course,...since you seem to be genuinely upset of my behaviour earlier I can look again your message in the other thread and maybe answer to it some later time. But I cannot promise you anything or tell does it really lead us anything better...

Thing is that sometimes people's views and also style of communication differ so much that any discussion between them is if not impossible then at least very cumbersome. It has happened me to before even on this board (will not name any names) and the results aren't pretty.

Yes, exactly.

We weren't getting anywhere and it would have probably continued so I decided to let it go. Actually I though I had made it clear in my last message but I thought wrong.

Alright.

Please, be honest here. It is obvious this complaint was inspired by our discussion so I decided to answer you since I didn't know this was such a big problem for you.

This , could qualify as another annoying arguement tactic (The "It is such a big problem for you ... , i am sorry i didn't know") Actually it isn't.

I made just a legitimate complaint over something that i consider a problem or annoying whenever it happens whoever the participants. And that is a person leaving a heated discussion that is dominated by only two persons without responding at all.

That is all. Now if you claim that you thought that you responded to the subjects i rose before i said them , then i must accept it. However my legitimate complaint stands , but not for you , if you say so.

Of course,...since you seem to be genuinely upset of my behaviour earlier I can look again your message in the other thread and maybe answer to it some later time. But I cannot promise you anything or tell does it really lead us anything better...

But you already answered to them , now , apparently. We already decided it will lead us nowhere. So that would be a waste of time. Unless you want to raise another subject ,i don't.

Thing is that sometimes people's views and also style of communication differ so much that any discussion between them is if not impossible then at least very cumbersome. It has happened me to before even on this board (will not name any names) and the results aren't pretty.

To tell you the truth i believe any obstacles in communication can be overcome by providing more information over the subject matter. Certainly people mean different things by different words and have different codes of communication. But Communication is certainly a big issue to be solved over discussions that have to do with describing with few words the behavior of people in the past. People understand behavior differently . What may seem lazy to one , to others may seem as something different.

Indeed that is a hard subject to discuss with very high barriers making communication difficult. In the end we lacked the energy to do it.

 

[C~G]

In the end we lacked the energy to do it.

I finally agree.

No hard feelings then eh?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Posting a claim, then asking the opposition to prove them wrong.

Being me.

I found the way to make you back up your claim.

Just asking you to provide some sources won't do. You just go: "prove me wrong."

Claim the opposite you do. Tell you in the most obnoxious way possible that I won (slamdunks, homeruns, knock-outs the lot) and you lost, and then you back your claims up. It worked in the latest environment thread

Fire with fire

 

[Rossiya]

Losing an argument and then calling the wrath of the mods upon the poor souls of your opponents.

 

[BasketCase]

If a book , or generally a subject needs closure that does not mean you can end it right there with no conclusion because it was the moment to close it and couldn't expand the main subject any more..

And closure was one of the available option. Others included , a request at providing more information over a subject.

This is a problem I see pretty frequently in online arguments--they keep going around in circles and never end.....

Sometimes it's because new participants jump in and need old topics explained to them all over again, but unfortunately, sometimes, it's one party or the other--usually both--who just don't get what the other guy is saying.

 

[BasketCase]

Posting a claim, then asking the opposition to prove them wrong.

That's just the way logic works. If something is definitely true, or definitely false, proof must be provided.

We've been over that many times, Zig. When BasketCase says something is definitely true, he posts proof. With a lot of threads, however, I'm posting theories. Or sometimes flat-out guesses.

A theory or a guess is in the realm of the possible. That which is possible is not true and not false--it's in between. If somebody says the theory or guess is definitely false, they must prove it.

And, if I say it's definitely true, I must prove it.


These rules always hold, no matter who is typing what in any thread. They're just the basic rules of logic.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Posts consisting of links and copypasta.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's just the way logic works. If something is definitely true, or definitely false, proof must be provided.

We've been over that many times, Zig. When BasketCase says something is definitely true, he posts proof. With a lot of threads, however, I'm posting theories. Or sometimes flat-out guesses.

A theory or a guess is in the realm of the possible. That which is possible is not true and not false--it's in between. If somebody says the theory or guess is definitely false, they must prove it.

And, if I say it's definitely true, I must prove it.


These rules always hold, no matter who is typing what in any thread. They're just the basic rules of logic.

You can post possibles all day long. And it can be a nice sidenote. But it becomes a little annoying when the possibility has to be proven wrong before the possible claim can be dismissed.

"This is possible."

No problem at all.

"This is possible, prove me wrong"

Not ok.

Sometime, you will draw conclusions or use the possibles in an argument. When that happens, you will have to prove the possible is at least realistic.

For instance on our favourite subject:

It is possible Garden Gnomes cause global warming by farting, prove me wrong.

When the argument is: before you can disprove the possibility of Garden Gnomes it has to be taken into account in the discussion. Then we venture into the rediculous.

So, I have absolutely no issues with wild theories or guesses whatsoever. Until they are used as argument.

edit: In my most humble of opinions.

 

[choxorn]

That's just the way logic works. If something is definitely true, or definitely false, proof must be provided.

We've been over that many times, Zig. When BasketCase says something is definitely true, he posts proof. With a lot of threads, however, I'm posting theories. Or sometimes flat-out guesses.

A theory or a guess is in the realm of the possible. That which is possible is not true and not false--it's in between. If somebody says the theory or guess is definitely false, they must prove it.

And, if I say it's definitely true, I must prove it.


These rules always hold, no matter who is typing what in any thread. They're just the basic rules of logic.

But it's an argument, logic is always thrown out the window.

 

[BasketCase]

But it becomes a little annoying when the possibility has to be proven wrong before the possible claim can be dismissed.

Yep. It's annoying. Too damn bad. It remains necessary.

As the saying goes: the truth hurts.


Unrelated side note: earlier today I was watching Glenn Beck on Headline News, and I noticed he acts almost exactly like me in a lot of ways. One of his lines today was "Now, I hate to say 'I told you so", but....well, actually I don't...."

The guy is a serious smartass--and a national news headliner. Not very nice, but makes for great national television. Maybe I oughtta ditch my current job and be a newscaster?

 

[choxorn]

Well, if you'd like to and think you'd make money from it, go ahead. That seriously would be

And perhaps doing so would give you time to update the Vanguard...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yep. It's annoying. Too damn bad. It remains necessary.

It's quite unnessecary. And it's annoying because it's usually a smokescreen, not because you show very nicely what happens in those threads right here:

As the saying goes: the truth hurts.

Allright Basket, want to go the childish route with me? I'll play. Explain how a possibility, a wild theory, a guess is suddenly a truth that hurts? What is it? Either a possibilty, which is not te same as truth. Or something you want to pose as a truth? Want to have your cake or eat it?

I can see that it's neccesary when you want to divert the thread away from a subject you are drowning in. And incidently it often happens when you are well on your way of getting lost in a discussion.

-------------

Which brings me to another annoying argument tactic. Using 1 line out of a post, making an unfounded smart-ass comment on it and believing the post was sufficiently answered. It's a clear indication you have no reply to the rest. (Universal you)

 

[Angst]

People that annoy you on purpose, but still don't troll nor flame.

 

[scy12]

People who manipulate every word you say so that they can keep ignoring what you have to say , they then create an imaginary arguement which they then defeat and so they can proclaim themselfs as winners. And they act like it was not on purpose. Sophistical lying.