How do you argue?

[CJack14dt]

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?

[Deleted]

I only get frustrated in an argument when the other person refuses to present evidence or refuses to look at any evidence I have. I have had some very bitter fights over things that are easily proved if you spend 2 mins on google.

[Pull My Finger]

I'm a very constructive and calm "arguer" in personal matters. Like, having an argument with your partner and stuff. You know, being honest, staying on topic, no outbursts, no accusations, no insults, no warming up old stories that don't have anything to do with the current problem, trying to understand the standpoint of the other person, etc.

As for discussions and debates, I guess I'm pretty much the opposite of all that. I'm not really a discussion guy. I don't see the point of it. I have my opinions. They're usually funded. If I hold a certain opinion, that means I'm very sure of it. I'd be a liar if I claimed it's actually possible to convince me of something else. If I'm not 100% sure, I don't hold it as if I were, and I think that's the main problem with a lot of people.

And since my opinions are usually very soild, I don't see a point in discussing the matter. What for? To convince somebody else that I'm right? To change his opinion into mine, to prove a point? I don't see what for. I don't even care if someone refuses to acknowledge my "evidence" or whatever. Everyone's entitled to their own view. I'm a honest person, if I think something's wrong or bullshit, I'll say it. And that's where heated debating goes off and I don't see any use for that.

[tiporispit]

I only get frustrated in an argument when the other person refuses to present evidence or refuses to look at any evidence I have. I have had some very bitter fights over things that are easily proved if you spend 2 mins on google.

Google is not exactly a legitimate way to gather evidence. All you will find is a variety of studies, arguing both sides of an issue. You will simply pick and choose information from sites that agree with your own viewpoint. There is a lot of propaganda out there, and Google does nothing to filter those results.

The government cigarette campaign is a classic example. With the various garbage anti-smoking laws and public service announcements, you'd think cigarette smoking was akin to wearing a SCUBA tank filled with nuclear waste. The reality? In the Federal government's own case against cigarette manufacturers, they presented evidence that smoking accounts for 11% of lung cancers. Out of all the cancers, if we limit it to the organ smoking damages the most, 1 in 10 got cancer because they smoked tobacco. Seems a fairly insignificant number to cause all the hysteria and Federal spending we see to curb the behavior. Knowing the corruption levels in Washington, you have to wonder what really ignited this war on tobacco. Public sentiment, not grounded in science? A simple pander to an ignorant constituency?

The point is you have to take Google with a grain of salt, because the "studies" it pulls up do not deserve anything more than a grain of salt. A cup of coffee a day prevents cancer. Next week, no, it causes cancer. We take those claims at face value, knowing nothing about the methodology used to determine them. What were the conditions under which it was tested? What type of people was the control group populated with? What placebo, if any was used? What instruments were used? Are those instruments and methods of measurement considered current in the scientific community? Google will not answer any of these questions, and therefore, information found there is rather useless.

[eriseis]

I fight absolute statements and strict literalism.

[Deleted]

Google is not exactly a legitimate way to gather evidence. All you will find is a variety of studies, arguing both sides of an issue. You will simply pick and choose information from sites that agree with your own viewpoint. There is a lot of propaganda out there, and Google does nothing to filter those results.

The government cigarette campaign is a classic example. With the various garbage anti-smoking laws and public service announcements, you'd think cigarette smoking was akin to wearing a SCUBA tank filled with nuclear waste. The reality? In the Federal government's own case against cigarette manufacturers, they presented evidence that smoking accounts for 11% of lung cancers. Out of all the cancers, if we limit it to the organ smoking damages the most, 1 in 10 got cancer because they smoked tobacco. Seems a fairly insignificant number to cause all the hysteria and Federal spending we see to curb the behavior. Knowing the corruption levels in Washington, you have to wonder what really ignited this war on tobacco. Public sentiment, not grounded in science? A simple pander to an ignorant constituency?

The point is you have to take Google with a grain of salt, because the "studies" it pulls up do not deserve anything more than a grain of salt. A cup of coffee a day prevents cancer. Next week, no, it causes cancer. We take those claims at face value, knowing nothing about the methodology used to determine them. What were the conditions under which it was tested? What type of people was the control group populated with? What placebo, if any was used? What instruments were used? Are those instruments and methods of measurement considered current in the scientific community? Google will not answer any of these questions, and therefore, information found there is rather useless.

Some very reputable websites can be found on google, I am not daft enough to base an argument on an amateur website written by somebody with no authority. Google can however, find websites that have accounts from the worlds leading experts in their subjects.

[Reeve]

I tend to find that most people who think they're good at making objective arguments tend to be lying to themselves. That's not to say that there aren't people who are legitimately good at it. I just think that if everyone who THINKS they're good at rational argumentation ACTUALLY were good at rational argumentation, these boards would be much more civil.

[Deleted]

I fight only about things I'm 100% sure. I lay down the facts and that's it. But when someone just doesn't get it I seek proof or just try to noob it down to their level. I do get very loud fights with family members though since those fights are only from the point of view from each person. Like for example playing WOW... Mother keeps complaining about it although I play only about 5h a week atm or even when I'm just at the computer she's like "Playing games again. You're so blah blah!" And what I'm actually doing most of the time? I'm talking to people, reading stuff or watching a movie. Oh yeah movies... That's playing games for her...

[Temp name]

i just generally throw as much as i can at them while keeping a calm voice, because what they say has 0 impact on me, unless they can prove why they're right, and if they just can't face the truth, i just resort to poker facing even more and they end up just giving up trying to "reason" with me. a generalisation of some arguments, boiled down to the base without revealing what it's about, is basicly someone tried to argue that 1+1 gave 3, and refused to accept the answer 2..

[Karaoke]

I generally spend my time questioning the other person's assumptions. For the most part, people want the same basic things, but the way we go about accomplishing those needs/wants is different for each person. By understanding their assumptions, I get a better idea behind what specifically drives/motivates them.

As a previous poster put it, there's little chance you're actually going to persuade someone to change their opinion.

[Grizzly Willy]

I try and refrain from being rude; if I can't be polite, or can't think up the right words for my argument, I usually just delete the post and refrain from commenting. You would be surprised by how many posts I have made and then hit "cancel" on.

If somebody provides sufficient evidence to prove me wrong, then I will admit I am wrong. I've settled a number of discussions politely this way, and I gotta say, despite this being the internet and none of you knowing who I am, I still care about what people think of me. So when I can settle a dispute in such a way that there is no animosity on either sides, I feel pretty good.

Some very reputable websites can be found on google, I am not daft enough to base an argument on an amateur website written by somebody with no authority. Google can however, find websites that have accounts from the worlds leading experts in their subjects.

Yeah, you can find reputable sites with factual data via Google. If that fails, I would suggest going to an online database if you have access to one, like Ebsco or JSTOR, two of my go-to's.

[enphestid]

I don't get mad , but try to get the other person mad. Basicly say the total opposite of what they are debating , even if you agree , laugh at them when they get mad , win.

[Catta]

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.

I argue very much the same way and my sister is almost my antithesis in this regard... She is quick to anger and yell and cares not for evidence... It always ends in ad hominem on her part...
Usually its stupid stuff her and my mom are talking about at the dinner table and confirming each other's wrong theories that makes me facepalm... Like last time i argued with her it was because she said no sauna would ever be 100 degrees while steam baths would be... And with the first one i could easily say it was untrue - since ive been to saunas with thermometers and you could just wikipedia it for convinence while with the steam its just very stupid as you can put your hand over a boiler and feel 100 degree steam...

As i pointed this out, it just resulted in ad hominem ad libitum

---------- Post added 2012-05-15 at 11:28 PM ----------

I tend to find that most people who think they're good at making objective arguments tend to be lying to themselves. That's not to say that there aren't people who are legitimately good at it. I just think that if everyone who THINKS they're good at rational argumentation ACTUALLY were good at rational argumentation, these boards would be much more civil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
Those who think themselves the best very rarely, if at all, are...

[Grizzly Willy]

I argue very much the same way and my sister is almost my antithesis in this regard... She is quick to anger and yell and cares not for evidence... It always ends in ad hominem on her part...
Usually its stupid stuff her and my mom are talking about at the dinner table and confirming each other's wrong theories that makes me facepalm... Like last time i argued with her it was because she said no sauna would ever be 100 degrees while steam baths would be... And with the first one i could easily say it was untrue - since ive been to saunas with thermometers and you could just wikipedia it for convinence while with the steam its just very stupid as you can put your hand over a boiler and feel 100 degree steam...

As i pointed this out, it just resulted in ad hominem ad libitum

---------- Post added 2012-05-15 at 11:28 PM ----------



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
Those who think themselves the best very rarely, if at all, are...

Good thing I think so poorly of myself, and so highly of everybody else.

[Knight Gil]

Google is not exactly a legitimate way to gather evidence. All you will find is a variety of studies, arguing both sides of an issue. You will simply pick and choose information from sites that agree with your own viewpoint. There is a lot of propaganda out there, and Google does nothing to filter those results.

The government cigarette campaign is a classic example. With the various garbage anti-smoking laws and public service announcements, you'd think cigarette smoking was akin to wearing a SCUBA tank filled with nuclear waste. The reality? In the Federal government's own case against cigarette manufacturers, they presented evidence that smoking accounts for 11% of lung cancers. Out of all the cancers, if we limit it to the organ smoking damages the most, 1 in 10 got cancer because they smoked tobacco. Seems a fairly insignificant number to cause all the hysteria and Federal spending we see to curb the behavior. Knowing the corruption levels in Washington, you have to wonder what really ignited this war on tobacco. Public sentiment, not grounded in science? A simple pander to an ignorant constituency?

The point is you have to take Google with a grain of salt, because the "studies" it pulls up do not deserve anything more than a grain of salt. A cup of coffee a day prevents cancer. Next week, no, it causes cancer. We take those claims at face value, knowing nothing about the methodology used to determine them. What were the conditions under which it was tested? What type of people was the control group populated with? What placebo, if any was used? What instruments were used? Are those instruments and methods of measurement considered current in the scientific community? Google will not answer any of these questions, and therefore, information found there is rather useless.

So, I take your arguing method is to have double-standards about sources of information, saying that it should be taken with a grain of salt when it doesn't suit your personal agenda, then pulling a "study" out of your arse (giving no source) to prove cigarretes are harmless, just because you're annoyed at anti-smoking laws? Then you talk about public sentiment, not grounded in science, when you're the one putting aside scientific studies that justify those laws, forgetting the fact that google will actually answer those questions if you use it for more than 5 minutes, and instead choose to use rhethoric to push your point into other people's throats?

Cool story, bro.

[LocNess]

I always try to use pure logic and common sense in arguments, but unfortunately I am a senior in High School so most people are completely ignorant or so egotistical they just argue to make themselves look good. Also I only choose arguments on things I either know for a fact (like a whale shark is a fish, not a mammal), or feel strongly about an issue (death penalty, which is what is going on in another thread).

If I have no clue what is being debated, I just look up resources to find out more. Also I never raise my voice and always keep calm (though I may speak sharply and quickly in annoyance) and generally focus on disproving the opponents points rather than repeating my own. I am a very effective arguer though when dealing with the average human intelligence ^_^

[oblivionx]

It really depends on the venue and the subject.

Forums aren't a very good place to debate.

Politics are generally not something you can ever sway the other side on, because "right" is totally subjective.

[Orestis]

I only get frustrated in an argument when the other person refuses to present evidence or refuses to look at any evidence I have. I have had some very bitter fights over things that are easily proved if you spend 2 mins on google.

Similar... I get heated when someone refuses to look at evidence that contradicts their beliefs/understandings. Years ago I got into a discussion with my father about the seasons and the earths orbit. He has some weird ass belief about how it works that I couldn't help but laugh at. He's the kind of person that HAS TO BE RIGHT all the time, but I tread lightly and used his own model to draw some pictures and presented them to him. His model could not account for something (like the tilt of the Earth's axis... I don't quite remember), and I pointed it out... to this day he wont talk about anything Astronomy or Physics with me, and I can't stand talking to people like him.

I don't argue much, but generally set forth and use logic. It's a handy tool. If someone wants to ignore that, they aren't worth my time.

[Drekker17]

When I argue I'm usually calm, but I don't necessarily appear emotionless...the only time I get very angry is with my parents. I think very sarcastically, but I just talk normal until I meet one of two people:

1. The Semi-Expert: I can't stand these guys, they think because they know a little more than the average person on a subject that everything they say is correct and get overly emotional when you point out faults.

2. The Overly Logical: They are really not logical in my opinion, they think very concrete, realistic, factual...they can't think abstract they can't think and/or understand subjective opinions. They're basically that person that assumes everything we know about science is correct. In they past they would've been that person who not only believes the earth centric theory, nothing wrong with that as it made the most sense even when heliocentric theories came out, but they would've never thought of heliocentric theory or any theory ever. Sadly I feel most people on the internet are extreme left brain dominate folks, or act like it.

The first group of people I enjoy humiliating, I know it's mean, but I hate cockiness. The second group of people I just act sarcastic to, it's annoying to debate them because they just seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying.

[Zyzzyx]

I'm with you for much of this. I discuss things completely openly, and I make sure to separate objectivity and subjectivity. I try to always let people know that even when I "know" I'm right, I may not be right. I argue with the mindset that the other side very well could be right or have a valid point. I do not show emotion, and it bothers some (especially the wife). Disagreements are about issues, not people. I hate the issue, or disagree with the issue, not the person. Even if I think they're morons, they may still be right.

Also, Google doesn't "just pull up objective studies" and such. Every major scientific journal in the world will show up there with the right searches, since it isn't exactly picking and choosing. It's the person who fails at sifting through, but in the right hands great research can start there.