annoying arguing tactics
In a recent weblog post, Scott Adams wrote:
…when anyone brings into the debate Hitler, or the slippery slope, or guilt by association arguments, I consider that a victory by knockout too. And if someone ignores a simple and direct question, that’s the cleanest victory there is.
How true is that? Here’s my commentary:
Hitler: Godwin’s Law states “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” This is true in real life too. In a (unrelated) debate, when someone brings up the Holocaust, Hitler or the Nazis I end the exchange there and then, usually walking away. People use this tactic when they run out of arguments and resort to the most extreme event in history as a “good example.” It’s not only inappropriate, it can’t lead anywhere.
Slippery slope: This is a tactic to move away from the topic at hand so that Hitler could be used as a trump. We’re not slippering sloping anywhere. One of the hardest things to do in an argument is to stay on topic and the most frustrating one to people who don’t know what they are talking about.
Guilt by association: Enter stupidity. Is anyone arguing with that?
Here’s my addition:
Generalization: “Don’t generalize” is an annoying retort to which I answer “I can’t go check one by one.” Seriously, can any debate be had without generalization? We wouldn’t get anywhere if we needed to ask every living person if tomatoes are red.
My problem with these argument-unfriendly tactics is not that I can’t answer to them. The problem is that I immediately feel that it’s a complete waste of time. I therefore choose who to argue with very carefully and don’t argue with strangers. I also do my best to argue about things I am knowledgeable about… I wish more people felt that this was a prerequisite too.