(no subject)

[mangosteen]

There are any number of times that people who like to argue (but aren't really into the whole 'informed discussion' thing) roll out the same tired arguments or phrasings when talking about current events. Everyone likes to have something to say, even if they don't have anything to contribute. Ordinarily, I'd just point people at any number of listings of logical fallacies, but sometimes more concrete answers are necessary. As such, I'd like to list several of the more content-free utterances, along with appropriate responses. I invite others to leave additional instances in the comments. So, without further ado....

List: Annoying debate tactics I have known and loathed.

"If you knew what I knew..."
- But I don't, and you haven't given me any reason to believe you. Try again.

"Tell that to $person_something_bad_happened_to, [...]"
- Well it's a good thing that we're not talking about $person, then. Please state your counterexamples in the form of substantiated facts. Thanks.

"All $disadvantaged_minorty has to do is $vague_task."
- Anything is possible for someone who doesn't have to do it, good sir.

"Why are you hiding behind a dictionary? We should use the real meaning."
- Because if we can't agree on a meaning, then spatula egg martian woodchipper, by which I mean "your wankery flusters me".

"We haven't had any $event since $date. Obviously, $policy works."
- Actually, I think it's because I forgot to brush my teeth on $date. Prove me wrong.

"Well I have a cousin who did $thing"
- Well, I have a cousin who didn't do $thing. We're even. Can we get back to the topic?

"$assertion now more than ever."
- Like anyone could know that.

"So you would rather that $bad_thing happened?"
- Nice strawman. Glad you got it out of your system. Try again.

Finally, for one that's specifically on a topic:
"Give me ONE example of how YOUR civil rights have been violated since 9/11."
- They're ALL OF OUR civil rights, so an attack on one person's is an attack on all. If you can't figure that out, Pastor Niemoller has a poem for you. My one example is José Padilla. Next question.

Comments

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

people who relentlessly knowledge at each other

Now I would never have dared use a noun as a verb in your presence! :-)

I'm with curly_chick on prefering to listen to a perspective until I either feel a sense of insight and affinity, or until I have to reject it. I've had close relationships with people who made devil's advocacy a never-ending game, and I've never done that nor appreciated it, even though I'm sure the vexing DA thought they were being quite clever. There was a time when I would argue back, to the point of screaming and tears, on any issue I felt strongly about. But I had to let go of that reponse. That's why a lot of my opinions end up as LJ posts and aren't put in the air for debate.

[lightcastle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, DA to try and probe the thoughts and reasoning of someone is ok. DA to hack people off and be clever is rarely so.

(Like the recent one I heard of "to be liberal means to be against the status quo by definition, so all liberals should be anti-abortion since abortion is the law of the land.")

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

*shudder*

I even stooped to checking 3 different dictionaries for "against the status quo " in any definition whatsoever. My condolences to you for having to endure whatever conversation that came from.

[lightcastle.livejournal.com]

OK, here is the original quote:

"I object to the misuse of lots of terms, including "Conservative" and "Liberal" - To whit: "pro-choice" can't be a "liberal" philosophy because choice is the law of the land - the desire to change the law of the land is, by definition, liberal. Anti-choice people are liberal, pro-choice people are conservative. "

When challenged, he then gave me the M-W definitions

Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways

Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

And now, his argument:

"Once something is the law of the land, it is "an existing ... situation," and therefore (by definition) preferred by someone who is "conservative," and opposed by someone who is "liberal."

That's how the words work. A person can go on believing that they're "conservative," and still be anti-choice, but they're wrong. They're really a liberal, and become one the day the law changed and they failed to support it. Political views may change, but language is beautiful and constant.

Only by changing the definition of the word can they keep from changing sides of the isle, and in order to change the word, they would have to be liberal in their use of language, proving me right."

That's the point where I wrote back "ROTFLMAO" since it was obvious that he was trying to be clever and "provocative" and didn't actually have an argument, but was just DAing for the sake of it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

Some people really need to stop huffing on the crack pipe and get some fresh air.

[lightcastle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but this was a pretty obvious case of "playing Devil's Advocate" only in the sense of "trying to push buttons and seem clever" as evidence by his defense of the statement (which is below in comments).

[awfief.livejournal.com]

As someone who does devil's advocacy a LOT, part of the point when I do it is to make people understand that the issue is not as simple as they feel. It's not a never-ending game (for me), it ends when the other person acknowledges that their "solution" works in most cases, but falls apart on the boundary, or that it's a good idea but has a flaw, or whatever. In other words, with me, it's not trying to say "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG" but more of a "Have you thought about all the angles?" kind of thing. If people say "yeah, it won't work in all cases, but it's a pretty good solution and I haven't thought of a better one" then that's the end of it, for me.

Most people say "but it's a good idea!" as if that's all that mattered. I acknowledge it's a good idea, but I point out where it's not and folks take it personally, refusing to admit that their idea isn't a blanket solution.

yes

[wildraven.livejournal.com]

yes!

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

It's actually good to hear from someone who does DA, to find out more about why you do it, so thank you for the perspective on it. I simply never do it myself outside of my own head, but come to think of it, I do it inside my own head quite a lot. I think that's why, when someone DA's me (oh fie, I used an acronym as a verb), it's doubling up on my own internal efforts toward circumspect thinking, which often feels like too-much-too-soon when it happens in face to face debate.