How do you argue?

[Deleted]

WITH LOTS OF SHOUTING, NAME CALLING AND FINGER POINTING!

POOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No but seriously I'm like you OP, I come across with knowledge of what I'm arguing for and against. Open to the other person's side of the argument in case there is a fact that I was either unaware of or in case I'm actually just flat out wrong!

The most annoying thing that people do when they argue is completely ignore the other side. I find that very very frustrating as many times I know for 100% fact that what they are trying to argue against me with is wrong.
Also one of the annoying things other people do when arguing is when I've been having a discussion (not even necessarily an argument) for a few minutes listening to the other person's point of view while putting mine across, then eventually coming round to realising that I was in fact wrong about some aspects of my argument or even my whole side of the argument. And then when I realise I am wrong, and more than anything else I'm interested in the actual answer to the discussion not whether I "win" or "lose", the other person then feels the need to rub it in my face that I was wrong and they were right. Rather than realising that I was open to their side of the argument and saw the error in my ways and in many cases even apologise for taking any other side than theirs.

People I know seem to lack the ability to have a civilised discussion, unable to come to some sort of mutual agreement or any sort of good sportsmanship. And it usually does resort to them name calling, shouting and finger pointing towards me while I sit there and lose more and more faith in humanity and slowly make me dislike them that tiny little bit.

So basically the worst thing other people do is to have no manners during a discussion.

[Coffer]

That is why I've never lost an argument.

Shh, I recall beating you once.

[mea]

Lack of willingness to present proof in combination with reliance on established values. You know, when people point to drugs and tell you that they're bad because they're drug, without explaining why and using the established connotations of the word 'drugs' to impact others. Just an example.

[Deleted]

So I'm a seeker of knowledge, lifelong learner type of guy so I'm always inquisitive about stuff but I always try to ask my questions with as much background knowledge as I can. Questions always lead to more questions and more often than not I end up into debates with people. However, I'm told I can be frustrating because I never "get heated" when I argue, I'm always very emotionally flatlined as I pose questions and present my points. Many of my friends says this indicates I lack passion in my viewpoint and they don't like to argue/debate with people that are not passionate about what they are saying because I come across as uninterested in the topic at hand. Furthermore they said because I always have background knowledge or have at the very least worked on making myself learned they say it comes off as arrogant. I should try to just "go with how I feel, not how I think," as they say.

From my vantage point people that argue passionately are actively making their arguments subjective (as opposed to me who's striving to present myself as close to objective as I can although never truly reaching pure objectivity) and therefore are more likely to present skewed data or say things that are less than logically sound and leads me to second guess what they present. As far as the arrogance goes I feel like a scientist that's put the work into observing data and making a conclusion based off the data presented. There is a confidence to the conclusion because of the observation, not an arrogance.

So my question to the OT group, which type of arguer are you and why does the inverse of you frustrate you, what specifically about how others present things bothers you?

Man, your friends sux imo. I really do not like (but respect) when some1 gets so emotional when talking about serious stuff. People seem not to know that things are not that simple and that evet stick has two ends.

I consider myself calm, even after alcohol I seem to be much more cooler then other friends around me.

[Deleted]

So I'm a seeker of knowledge, lifelong learner type of guy so I'm always inquisitive about stuff but I always try to ask my questions with as much background knowledge as I can. Questions always lead to more questions and more often than not I end up into debates with people. However, I'm told I can be frustrating because I never "get heated" when I argue, I'm always very emotionally flatlined as I pose questions and present my points. Many of my friends says this indicates I lack passion in my viewpoint and they don't like to argue/debate with people that are not passionate about what they are saying because I come across as uninterested in the topic at hand. Furthermore they said because I always have background knowledge or have at the very least worked on making myself learned they say it comes off as arrogant. I should try to just "go with how I feel, not how I think," as they say.

From my vantage point people that argue passionately are actively making their arguments subjective (as opposed to me who's striving to present myself as close to objective as I can although never truly reaching pure objectivity) and therefore are more likely to present skewed data or say things that are less than logically sound and leads me to second guess what they present. As far as the arrogance goes I feel like a scientist that's put the work into observing data and making a conclusion based off the data presented. There is a confidence to the conclusion because of the observation, not an arrogance.

So my question to the OT group, which type of arguer are you and why does the inverse of you frustrate you, what specifically about how others present things bothers you?

Well, it's also my goal to keep it as objective as possible, though it's often discouraging what people bring up.
And no, noone can reach total objectivity. Sometimes I also realize, that arguments I brought up, are nonsense. Being able to do taht is in my opinion quite important, if you want to maintain good arguments. If you are not able to debunk your own statements from time to time, you are too biased.

Sometimes when I lost the right mood, due to stupid arguments or whatever, I may become a bit polemic.
And I love to debunk arguments of my "opponents". That's the best part of arguments :-). I love sarcasm.
It's even funnier, if they are not able to admit, that they are wrong.
Actually I hate people who aren't able to take criticism at all.

[Deleted]

When someone's using the "appeal to emotion" strategy, I am getting really angry. I just can't help it.

[Deleted]

I argue by saying nothing - seriously - there are so many dumb people that a vow of silence is the only way to prove them wrong.

If I get in discussions in college - I mostly am calm and think before I speak.

[Deleted]

The only times I get angry in arguments are when:
* The person I'm arguing with clearly refuses to admit their own bias or lack of knowledge, especially if it's in a field I have deep knowledge of and this person knows nothing about.
* When arguing with people who are in "troll mode" and seem to be more concerned with keeping the argument going than actually achieving consensus or understanding. Of course, in these cases I get angry at the person for this reason, not because they disagree with me (which they may or may not do, it's one thing to play devil's advocate for the sake of moving a conversation forward, it's another to constantly pick the opposite position of the person you're talking with just because you can).

Edit:
* And of course, if the other person isn't listening at all to what I'm saying or deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying. There are so many times when I've basically just said something along the lines of "I know you're not that stupid so please reply to my entire argument and not just one or two sentences that are easy to attack on their own".

[Deleted]

So I'm a seeker of knowledge, lifelong learner type of guy so I'm always inquisitive about stuff but I always try to ask my questions with as much background knowledge as I can. Questions always lead to more questions and more often than not I end up into debates with people. However, I'm told I can be frustrating because I never "get heated" when I argue, I'm always very emotionally flatlined as I pose questions and present my points. Many of my friends says this indicates I lack passion in my viewpoint and they don't like to argue/debate with people that are not passionate about what they are saying because I come across as uninterested in the topic at hand. Furthermore they said because I always have background knowledge or have at the very least worked on making myself learned they say it comes off as arrogant. I should try to just "go with how I feel, not how I think," as they say.

From my vantage point people that argue passionately are actively making their arguments subjective (as opposed to me who's striving to present myself as close to objective as I can although never truly reaching pure objectivity) and therefore are more likely to present skewed data or say things that are less than logically sound and leads me to second guess what they present. As far as the arrogance goes I feel like a scientist that's put the work into observing data and making a conclusion based off the data presented. There is a confidence to the conclusion because of the observation, not an arrogance.

So my question to the OT group, which type of arguer are you and why does the inverse of you frustrate you, what specifically about how others present things bothers you?

From the top of my head, when people openly defend atrocity and the annulment of personal liberty. That only describes some types of argument, I guess - but it is what I mostly argue anyone.

Or the passionate fence sitters, permanent centrists. Basically those who appear to not want to inadvertently offend or upset anyone.

[Deleted]

I never argue. Im always right.

[BLCalliente]

I normally build straw man after straw man until my opponent just throws his hands up and leaves me alone as the victor!


Ok, I'm kidding. I can't remember where I heard this, but it struck me as very applicable to this forum and others:

"You didn't win the debate. You said a funny thing. BIG DIFFERENCE."

[Destruktion]

Rhetorically. I have come to appreciate rhetoric as an effective and entertaining means of arguing with others.

[Hakarran]

OP, many people throughout history have based argument completely on logical thinking so don't feel too different. Off the top of my head, Maximilien Robespierre comes to mind. Try to argue with a little humanity.
There is nothing wrong with using facts and experiences to argue, but argument exists for the betterment of knowledge. I recently debated in a class the Hobbesian view of man's nature, versus Locke's view. I argued for Hobbes because of events like the Nanking massacre, but my opinion was my own. If you argue without passion, you are arguing someone else's point, not an unbiased one necessarily.

[Daws001]

I took the ICS Inventory for a class last semester and it gauges your conflict style. I can't remember the exact categories but I fell into the Direct one which sounds similar to the OP's style. Keep it rational and we don't like to get emotional as it skews things. What was interesting is the ICSI also would give the perceived strengths and weaknesses from the vantage point of the other conflict styles. I want to say those were Direct, Indirect (?), Dynamic, and...Emotional, maybe? I don't have the book anymore.

Anywho, those that favor a Direct style can be perceived as lacking emotion, interest, etc by the other styles. The Emotional (?) types can be perceived as too aggressive, irrational, rude, etc by the other types. Dynamic types can be perceived as shifty and I can't remember about Indirect (?). Too passive I think...prefers to avoid conflict...Oh! I think maybe it was Accommodating, not Indirect....hmmm, should have kept that book.

It was interesting and pretty much nailed me. I tend to be repulsed by the Emotional types and see them as aggressive, irrational, and are more prone go ad hominem. I find the Dynamic types frustrating as they can be slippery and mince words (politicians and lawyers come to mind).

[Drekker17]

How ironic of you.

I hope you are talking about the last part, trying to "humiliate" an opponent is being cocky, because nothing else of that is me at all. I don't come across as a semi-expert on anything we debate on here, and I don't think people think I'm extremely logical...in fact I think they think I'm weird.

I tend to hate certain aspects I have, like I hate lazy people, but I'm lazy.

[BrokenHearthstone]

Know what you are arguing about. (Don't just throw out random facts/opinions, or you'll look stupid.)

[Coming soon]

Don't argue. It makes the other person rage so much when you do not respond at all. And then they calm down and you can talk like normal people again~

You are the man i seen in the opposite of argument with me.

[Deleted]

I'm surprisingly much like the OP when it comes to arguments. And honestly, it's not a good quality.

People get frustrated when you're emotionally flatlined. My ex-girlfriend hated it.

As good a feeling it is to "win" an argument, you don't always win in the long run.

[Deleted]

I state my claim, person denies it, I state my claim again, person denies it again and starts getting annoyed in their tone, I shrug, walk away and then the person says I'm right once they find out I was right afterall.

That's atleast how it's been going the past 6 months, the people I end up ''discussing'' with never change their viewpoint until it gets shoved into their face (but if I am the one showing them they still deny it, they have to find out by themselves)

[Deleted]

I've learned that arguing is just bad for everyone.

It puts dents in friendships, it ruins relationships, it causes fights.

It doesn't really resolve anything, because at the end of the day, people want to be right and they really hate being told they're wrong.

I don't argue anymore, except on forums like these or when I'm in a situation where arguing is the primary objective (like in a class or in a debate). I don't see a point with it.

I have a friend who loves arguing, and he knows I'm good at it and he tries to con me into doing it all the time because he loves the challenge (or loves being challenged because no one calls him on his bullshit). But I don't fall for it.