(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

[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.