Most annoying argument tactics

[Mise]

Calling someone an "apologist" is annoying.

 

[Millman]

Not really a tactic but an obvious observation. We're a beliver in free speech but do not abuse the priviledge.

In a court of law you are prosocuted for your misleading statements so people don't do it there, on a forum they 'only' get banned.

 

[scy12]

In a court of law you are prosocuted for your misleading statements so people don't do it there, on a forum they 'only' get banned.

When was one banned for a misleading statement ? Do you mean about misleading statements that have much to do with revealing an identity of someone else and then attempting to embarrass it ?

 

[Millman]

Someone was banned on another forum for lying about his age.

My point is that in the court of law the punishment is more severe depending on the crime than in public and that certain things are not taken as seriously.

This would conclude an argument for 'the court of law' vs. 'the court of public opinion.'

 

[scy12]

Someone was banned on another forum for lying about his age.

This is an example where a statement is lying about whether it fulfills the terms of agreement for using the forum.

My point is that in the court of law the punishment is more severe depending on the crime and that in public and that certain things are not taken as seriously.

Whatever ...

 

[Millman]

This forum is only our opinion, if you're serious about it ask an expert or go to court and bring your expert.

But I come cuz I not always serious..

 

[scy12]

This forum is only our opinion, if you're serious about it ask an expert or go to court and bring your expert.

But I come cuz I not always serious..

Alias ? ....

 

[Ecofarm]

at the very least, call me a murderer, or something related. anally raping with a weapon has NOTHING to do with eating meat.

Are you really so dense that you do not understand?

-----

Someone who agrees with him promotes anal rape with a weapon:

<Quote of someone agreeing with you and doing exactly that>

Has nothing to do with you, personally? Got issues? It's a reflection on the character of your take but I don't see how you think I was refering to you, personally, at all. I specifically divided my post with a "-----", then specifically said that someone else did this:, then quoted them. Why are you confused?

Hated argument tactic: People claiming, repeatedly, that you said something that you did not. Now matter how many times you post what you posted and everyone can see exacty what it means to anyone reading it. This relates to the "prove it" tactic; it's like "prove reality" and then they continue their fantasy - except you never said what they are claiming at all!

It seems no matter how many times I explain... No matter how many times I quote my own post, no matter how many times I point out the "-----", no matter how many times I point out the "Someone who agrees with them does..." and the quote that follows, no matter how many times they read it... reality escapes them. Then how can I be surprised that they disagree on other things, as if all facilities are present.

 

[choxorn]

And as I have already said, THAT WAS RHETORIC.

 

[Abaddon]

Not responding to everything as a whole, merely picking out certain sentances, and misunderstanding seeminly on purpose.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Soap box preaching, picking and choosing what posts to respond to.

 

[_random_]

When people go on random rants about the "liberal media" whenever you cite a source, and don't cite sources of their own.

 

[BasketCase]

But how do i know that you are not , i don't know a creation of my imagination ? How do i know you exist ? Or how do i know you are not a very sophisticated bot for example ?

Well, since imagination is limitless, you know you are not imagining this post because human imagination conjures up crazy things like your computer jumping off the desk and heading to the shoe store for some BOOTS.....

As to the other two--those aren't really important. I am simply BasketCase. I'm simply a name in the left-hand panel of each post I write, and that's all you ever see of me. Similarly, you are simply Scy12. You and I will never meet anywhere else but here. What you see on this page is the only "reality" we need concern ourselves with in this forum.

In short: I just don't worry about it. (Yeah, I coulda simply said that instead of getting all long-winded about it, but being verbose is one of my characteristics--if that suddenly changed.....then you WOULD know I'm suddenly no longer me....)

 

[GenMarshall]

Another to add to the list, Ad Ad hominems such as this example

And I have shown that your base arguement in this whole debate revolves around your 'woe is me' typical arguement since you cant afford a new computer and that of course the world revolves around everything Civgeneral. Which is of course incorrect as well.

especially when I did not made the argument revolve around myself .

 

[MobBoss]

Another to add to the list, Ad Ad hominems such as this example

But whats even worse are hypocrits who complain about ad homs and then say their own like this:

Geeze, How "Christian" of you to continue beating a person down when they have already admitted defeat!!

 

[Sims2789]

Strawmen are really annoying but are fun to outmaneuver. For example, "So you support destroying lives?" for abortion. Arguing that fetuses aren't lives is indefensible since they are alive. Thus, the question is whether they are persons. To not fall for this strawman, say "Fetuses are lives, but so are germs. Fetuses aren't sentient until [X] time, and then I oppose abortion."

 

[Erik Mesoy]

But whats even worse are hypocrits who complain about ad homs and then say their own like this:

Geeze, How "Christian" of you to continue beating a person down when they have already admitted defeat!!

That's not an ad hom. An ad hom is of the form "You are [unrelated derogatory characteristic], therefore you are wrong [or: your argument is wrong]".

Ironically, the hypocrite (or possibly it's just akrasia) here is you.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

What are some argument tactics that you notice people use a lot, and really annoy you? It can be here, elsewhere, or both.

1. "Everybody knows it, because scientists said it..." (and similar). What scientists? Give me their names, dates, etc!
2. When they give links to blogs or to short arguable articles.
3. When people prefer to use somebody else's words and thoughts, but don't want to think over by themselves.

 

[philippe]

replying by just saying: you FAIL

It's ********.

 

[Volum]

If your not "pro" or for one thing, then they call you totally the oposite.

"I'm actually pro choice, but"
"BABY KILLER!"

"I think the Soviets where wrong taking the Baltic countries"
"You support Nazi's i get it"