top 10 arguments

[Kody Palmer]

Hey I found a site that explains the top 10 argument techniques (That ruin arguments for everyone). I thought this would be interesting to some of you. Reason 1 is The nirvana fallacy is rebuffing an argument, simply because it doesn’t offer a perfect solution:

 

I find this to be the case quite often when arguing about Anarcy.

Read more: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-argument-techniques-that-ruin-arguments-for-everyone.php#ixzz2Rt6QTQ5w

 

[MysterionMuffles]

Oh wow...I've fallen victim to many of these petty non-arguments from trolls online all my life. Mostly in the video game world.

[Pepin]

 

I am going to have to say that the article is quite terrible, especially in the quality of the examples.

 

 

Person X: I think we should ban assault weapons, because letting people have access to them is a stupid idea.

Person Y: But without guns, we’ll be unable to defend ourselves from the government.

Person X isn't making an argument, he is making a statement and supporting it with an opinion. If it is rearranged to "I think letting people have access to assault weapons is a stupid idea, therefore we should ban them", then the lack of substance becomes a little more obvious. Person Y's retort would need to be something like "letting people have access to assault weapons is a good idea, therefore we shouldn't ban them" in order for it to logically follow.

Person Y's response doesn't really make sense in regards to what X said. It is not a straw man because of this, rather it is better to see it as the person introducing their position on the matter. It would make more sense for Y to say, "if it is a stupid idea to allow people access to assault weapons, then would this also apply to the agency that enforces the ban?".

 

 

Person X: Video games and violence is a touchy topic, but there’s no real evidence to support the link.

Person Y: Some scientists would disagree.

The first bit of what X says doesn't affect the statement. X is saying is "there’s no real evidence in support a link between violent video games and real world violence". The term "no real" can be substituted with "credible", which is value judgment that depends on expert consensus.

Y's response actually makes a little sense, because they are saying that there isn't expert consensus. The word "some" in the context refers to a minority of experts.

Neither are making arguments, but they are appealing to an authority.

 

 

Person X: My mother says that sex before marriage will get me pregnant

 

Person Y: Well, no, that’s not the case. Many studies indicate that, as long as safe sex is practiced, you’re not likely to ever be blessed with a spare set of kidneys in baby form.

 

Person X: They’re obviously lying.

This one is pretty painful to read. To condense...

X: My mother says sex before marriage will get me pregnant

Y: Scientists shows that this isn't the case

X: Scientists are lying

Y makes an appeal to authority to counteract an appeal to authority. Certainly it is a valid appeal, but who in their right mind would respond to X's statement in such a way. Just a terrible example, especially with how X and Y are just making statements.

 

 

“Why should we have free healthcare [when] a select few people would just abuse it!”

It is a bit ironic that the idea of "free healthcare" is not questioned as the nirvana in the statement. I wonder if "free" is a weasel word.

 

 

“Why should we ban guns? Criminals would still find a way to get them!”

Not really sure how to go about this one to be honest.

[Kody Palmer]

You make some great points. The article was poorly written.

[Guest spam dumpster]

...more hostility and poor spelling than someone beating a dyslexic person with a dictionary.

 

That line alone was worth twice the price of admission.

[Moriartis]

Yeah, there are so many things about this article that irritate me. I'll list some.

I'm forced to assume that the author of this article is very anti-gun. His use of the "assault weapon" ban example, which logically should ban the vast majority of guns because it's a vaguely defined propaganda term is immediately suspect. It's also not a fallacy to say that a populace that only has access to revolvers and basic rifles with small magazines would be unable to defend themselves against a government with access to apache helicopters and M4 assault rifles. The author not getting this concept is not a logical fallacy.

Pepin, your point about his own use of weasel words and the nirvana fallacy was awesome. Very nicely put. I had the same thoughts when reading the article.

As far as the meme he uses for the example of the nirvana fallacy, perhaps someone can explain to me how that's a fallacy. Saying that gun laws have prevented shooting sprees is an unfalsifiable claim. Saying that the people who have committed shooting sprees are people who ignore laws is not only not a fallacy, it's obviously true(unless I missed something and suddenly shooting sprees were legalized). Granted, there are better ways of arguing this point, but the author seems to overlook massive fallacies if he doesn't agree with their conclusions.

Very irritating.

[MysterionMuffles]

I agree the article was poorly written and the examples were kind of stupid, but the concepts at their core really are good examples of crappy argument tactics.

[YMS]

Schopenhauer's essai 'The art of always being right' is strangely written too, or should i say not always enjoyable, but well worth the read. Made me a lot more honest to others, and to myself.

 

One real bad argument i get a lot from my girlfriend is "who are you to criticize the food in this restaurant, you don't know how to cook". I've already replied at least 5 times that you don't need to be a guitarist to know when a guitar isn't in tune or when the player played the wrong note, but...so far no luck. And the reaction i get is usually quite abrupt.

I don't know if i've just landed on unreasonable girlfriends, whether i attract them or whether i was just being unreasonable at the time i met them and therefore attracted the same...but i am seriously contemplating the idea of become sexist and declaring that all women are unreasonable, just to feel better.

;-)