digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How to Spot & Destroy Weak Arguments

blog.createdebate.com — Keep these simple rules in the back of your mind so that next time somebody tries to get in your face, you can slice them deep (all the way to the white meat).

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • itsfini, on 05/16/2008, -4/+163“Elephants charge at up to 25mph. Way faster than you can run…”
    This completely misses the point that the person said he would cut and weave. The elephant may be able to CHARGE at that speed, but they cannot change direction quickly. The rebuttal is a terrible one because it's not actually paid attention to what the original argument was claiming.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/16/2008, -5/+26I'm pretty agile and I still wouldn't like my odds against an elephant. It's not unheard of for experienced mahouts to get trampled.
      • burketo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+22the merits of elephant dodging is not the point. that was supposed to be an example of good debating but is in actual fact a complete swing and miss. the link deserves to be buried for that terrible example.
    • kazimir22, on 05/16/2008, -5/+5learned well, you have
    • citizenchan, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9Yeah, well, YOU'RE Stupid.
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/16/2008, -1/+29"Man vs. Satellite: Can You Escape?"

      “I am on the ground and far below a satellite, and would be able to escape if one were passing overhead by running, as long as I didn't run up.”

      and one rebuttal that found the critical flaw:

      “Satellites orbit at up to 18,000 mph. Way faster than you can run…”
    • doubledowndan, on 05/17/2008, -2/+7Also, he uses "way" in "way faster", which is interchangeable with "much" in this context. Using "much" is one of his 'weak argument' keywords. Very contradictory and confusing. Maybe I am missing something.
    • roflbrothel, on 05/17/2008, -1/+7Humans can run at up to 23 miles per hour (according to official records anyways, it's probably faster if you're being chased by an elephant) and they are much more agile than elephants.

      Now, I'm no mathematician but 25 does not seem way higher than 23...
      • ZeroIce, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Yes, because the average human can tie professional records [/sarcasm]. Also, take into the effect of your need to cut and weave, that you are in tall grass, and may not be have the best shoes and clothing for running - all of which will significantly slow you down. The chances of you running at 23 MPH are hard to believe. If you factor in adrenaline, which is a inconsistent variable, it may speed you up, but not enough to run 10 more MPH.

        I love debating over the stupidest things.
      • neokoros, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0***** YOU. I'M AN ANTEATER!!
      • soogy, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I'll have to agree with you there. Some 12 or 13 years ago, I found myself chasing after a bus I had just gotten off of doing 30 MPH. I did this for over a block, and beat the bus to the next stop.

        The reason? I thought I left my wallet on it. Turns out it was in my pocket the whole time. The things we do for money...
    • HiddenCanuck, on 05/17/2008, -0/+25You know who else liked to shoot elephants. Nazis.

      Argument won!
    • hinmanj, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6I know if I were being chased by an elephant, I could get somewhere near that 25mph. I ran against my friend's car a year ago and my limit was 20mph. After watching all those Discovery Channel Human Body episodes, I think the adrenaline would push me that few extra mph. Also I can maneuver better than an angry elephant...
    • lazydrumhead, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Just in case we need a definition: "straw man argument"
  • drkmccrthy, on 05/16/2008, -10/+73Easier method: "I'm right, you're wrong, and an idiot."
    • lcm133, on 05/16/2008, -6/+38Name-calling is the lowest form of disagreement, the most common and the least effective.
      • drkmccrthy, on 05/16/2008, -7/+49idiot.
      • YellowSnowDemon, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2But McCrthy, it is impossible to argue with idiots who ignore evidence and a convincing argument.
    • doctorfungi, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6That's like taking a ***** when you're supposed to be giving birth. Sure, it's easier... but *****, you're doing it wrong.
      • madeingermany, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2You obviously don't know much about giving birth ;)

        Most women push out some stool, while having a vaginal birth.
        And the way doctors usually describe active labor is like really really having to take a dump (maybe not those exact words).

        Sorry, if that's too much for the stereotypical digg-user, who has never had sex, let alone thought about a natural birth. :p
    • talonstriker, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Thats stupid. I just kick people in the crotch and run away.
      • kyeetza, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Sounds like my favorite show, "Ow! My Balls!"
    • Tamriel, on 05/16/2008, -2/+15Ah, yes... the Bill O'Reilly method.
    • Spoomeister, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Mr. O'Reilly? Is that you?
    • hiikeeba, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Ah! The "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" model championed by Al Franken. I believe Ann Coulter uses it too.
      • GeneralFault, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Are you saying that Coulter says that about Rush? Really? Have you ever listened to her? I've tried but the retched screeching that emits from her hate hole is just too much for any real human being to bare.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Al Franken constantly looks up and uses evidence to back up his arguments, he is, however a comedian and enjoys these admittedly cheap shots as ironic titles for books. (also known as sales pitches.) inside the book, that you are ridiculing, and I am guessing you have never read, he goes in depth to Limbaughs' hypocrisies (as well as the hypocrisies of Newt Gingrich.) but, seeing as you have read the title of the book, I suppose you can proclaim your self well versed.
    • kingvik, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2"Whatever, I'm going home" - Cartman
    • mitthuman, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2that sentence is also gramatically wrong

      pwnt
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 05/16/2008, -6/+142Here's how you spot one from my ex-wife: Her lips are moving.
    • MintzMan, on 05/16/2008, -11/+4I can think of at least one instance in which you would not disagree with the way that her lips are moving!
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1he did say EX wife... so he probably would not benefit from your innuendo.
    • doctorfungi, on 05/16/2008, -2/+18*Rimshot*
    • Croecop, on 05/16/2008, -12/+4Your ex-wife's lips are moving all around my junk, if that is what you mean. She begs to be face screwed.
  • Twan2649, on 05/16/2008, -4/+84This is a stupid article. It's a bit of common sense mixed with a few examples.
    • kaelyiesta, on 05/16/2008, -0/+14Agreed. This part bugs me the most:

      "If you’re in the debate to win[...]"

      What is the benefit of such a mindset? Feeling good because you've 'proven' your argument? You may end up believing things that are false because you managed to argue better. Spotting unsound(or invalid, depending on the degree of certainty your argument needs) argument is great, but try to apply it to your own arguments too. You stand a better chance of finding the true answer instead of just the answer you believe is right.
      • ParanoydAndroid, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1You should always be in a debate to win, otherwise it's just mental masturbation.

        "Spotting unsound ... argument is great, but try to apply it to your own arguments too."
        This step would definitely be carried out by a good debater anyway, either before they ever entered the debate, or on the fly before they offered a rebuttal to their opponents position.

        "You stand a better chance of finding the true answer instead of just the answer you believe is right."

        I believe this should always be the goal of debate, however:
        First: If it's actually an internet argument then odds are it's taking place between two people who already hold firm beliefs, it is the internet after all.
        Second: The only way a debate can be effective as a tool for discovering truth is if it involves people who are dedicated to the debate process, and part of that dedication is absolutely arguing your position as best you can, so that _any_ holes in the other side are discovered and discussed. Much of the in-depth analysis about your position should be coming from the opposition side, so if your position really is wrong, they'll point it out (that's kind of the whole point, really) so you don't have to worry about pointing out the problems in your own side yourself.


        Also, I know I used "much", but not in a way that invokes the fallacy of appeal to the majority, a distinction the website failed to make, and one that's important.
        • Myztry, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I enjoy getting in a group to Mass Debate...
      • InferiorWang, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I used to have debates with my friends over the most random stuff. It was always fun winning arguments when you know your side is wrong. Sometimes you have an "oh *****" moment mid-argument where you realize that you're going to have to dance around something the rest of the way through, but it can be exhilarating to see how long you defend to point. The best part was always the post-debate recap where we discussed the true strengths and weaknesses of each side as seen by each participant. People often miss a glaring hole in an argument because they are focused on another aspect of the argument. You can't rely on an opponent to give a full critique of your argument, but having both sides work together will help to improve your arguing skill.

        But yeah...all things considered, the article sucked. Opinions, absolutes, and vague generalizations are easy to argue against. They cover these kinds of things in elementary school. The author doesn't even mention the many other logical fallacies that are likely to come up in a debate.
    • AgentVladimir, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3It's even worse. It just says: if you want to win arguments, know things.
    • pleasureismine, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1"I am more electable"
  • Qong, on 05/16/2008, -7/+13Why is it bad to use yourself as the standard when making an argument? Maybe I have a bit of a superiority complex, but if I know for sure that I'm correct about something, then I'll use myself in an example to confirm that my opinion is indeed correct. That may seem like a weak argument to some people, but when I know that I'm correct about an issue and I still have to argue for its correctness, the opinion of the person that I'm arguing with is no longer valid to me; so I couldn't care less if they think I'm making a weak argument or not. I'm sure that other people feel the same way.

    Don't get me wrong though; if it's clear that I was wrong on the issue, I'll concede and explain my ignorance immediately after making the realization.
    • swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -3/+11It's circular logic: "I'm right because I'm right." It doesn't lead anywhere.
      • Rikkochet, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Not really. If you can demonstrate that you are correct through your own experience, then you are correct. That's pretty much trivial.
        *I* can drop an apple and it will fall, therefore I believe in gravity. I don't need your counter argument if you aren't opening up a completely new explanation.
        • GeneralFault, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Good point. I can claim to be an expert in an area, then provide something to back that up, then back up my own point with an "I think". This would then be a simple substitution of "I" for "at least one expert". At least that is my opinion ;)
        • ParanoydAndroid, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2No, the apple example would be an attempt to use empirical evidence in the form of anecdotes. Empirical evidence is fine, but not when it only applies to one person. One thing people discover if they ever do formal debate is that for every expert supported piece of evidence out there, there is an equal and opposite piece of expert supported evidence ("equal" as in the expert has equal qualifications, "opposite" as in, holding the opposite beliefs). It's best to find ways to prove the point that involve as more people than just yourself. You are, after all, 1 in 6,000,000,000
        • Qong, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I disagree. He was using gravity as an example of an argument that can be made without any outside help (centuries of study aside haha).

          The article states:
          "I, I don’t think, I believe - including yourself in the argument can indicate thinking personal experience equals the overall trend. If the debate is not a poll or about individual views, this can be Hasty Generalization."

          Which I don't believe to be true. If someone states something that is true while debating, it doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree with his statement, it doesn't matter if he has a large amount of evidence or pages of text from experts that agree with him, it doesn't make his statement any less true or his argument any less strong.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Anecdotal evidence is considered an inferior form of logical reasoning. for the following reason, one individual may have and extraordinary experience, while others do not see the same benefit from your experience when faced with the same situation. However, it is better if you are presenting information that otherwise has no possible statistical parallel, to preface it by saying "I believe..." but it should not be the crux of your point. even belief should be based on something factual.
      • dood, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2You've dismantled the entire Christian religion! Bravo!
        • lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Sadly, It will only take a few billion more times before that fact effects a single Christian!
    • Eslamicolt3, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6That's great if you're trying to prove to yourself that you're right, but then why are you arguing? Besides, this mostly refers to a structured debate in which you have to point out fallacies in logic. The fallacy you committed is called "Circulus in demonstrando"
    • Qong, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1That doesn't seem right to me. (In reply to swrostmore and Eslamicolt3)

      Arguments made without a general consensus or references to experts and studies are perfectly valid in my opinion. It is most certainly possible for me to be "right because I'm right", with nothing other than my very own argument, my personal feelings and opinions to support my case.

      Certainly you have to provide some substance to support your argument, you can't simply argue that you're just right and that the other person is just wrong without ever supplying the reasoning behind your conclusion.

      But the discussion was whether or not you can refer to yourself when making an argument and how that is or is not valid. It's clear to me that it is valid and I will continue to place myself in any argument that I feel like making.
    • Xeller, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1"...when I know that I'm correct about an issue and I still have to argue for its correctness, the opinion of the person that I'm arguing with is no longer valid to me;"

      This leads to a debate. You're debating to convince the other person that they are wrong, and you are right. Using your own opinion prevents that from happening, especially if both sides have the same logic you do (which they often do).

      When you're having a debate/argument, the goal (if you can call it that) is to convince the other person that your view is superior to theirs. Using yourself as a standard gets you nowhere when you're trying to convince the other guy that you're wright. You have to try to establish an outside standard.
    • HPMNick, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0Personal experience is one of the best forms of knowledge.. Although statements from personal experience may be met with skepticism (as they should) from other people, that is the strongest assertion of claiming you are right..

      "You can't use a VPN behind NAT based devices"

      rebuttal:

      "I'm doing it right now"

      Now, while this provides no evidence, its probably the strongest way of saying "I know for a fact you are wrong". Most of the time, people on the internet are talking out of their ass. This type of assertion will often call their bluff, or at the very least cause some backpedaling if they really don't know what they are talking about.
  • GalacticRerun, on 05/16/2008, -0/+87I prefer the flawless "I know you are but what am I?" and if that fails (which it can't because it's flawless, but if it does) "Takes one to know one" will undoubtedly finish them off.
    • shutaro, on 05/16/2008, -0/+29And nothing tops the subtle ironic wit of the "Your Mom" argument.
      • brian1625, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5"That's what she said"
      • bobdylanthomas, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1O really? It can be topped with the "Your Mom's Face Argument".
    • Iwantawii, on 05/16/2008, -1/+12"I'm rubber and you're glue so whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks onto you."
    • woofers07, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10I like "***** you" it totally proves you're right and the other person is a complete idiot
      • breezytrees, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4true. "***** you" beats anything.
        • Zaromis, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6A swift kick to the groin trumps all...
    • MiDri, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4I enjoy a good oh, "That sounds like something Hitler would say!"
    • tama00, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1screw you guys, im going home.
    • ChumpyMonkey, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1You fight like a dairy farmer.
      How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
  • DiggLive, on 05/16/2008, -2/+25Sweet! Now control over Digg will be mine.. muaahaaha.
    • kh99, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I believe that many people tend to disagree somewhat with that statement
      • MiDri, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2That sounds like something Hitler would say.
  • MaxMWood, on 05/16/2008, -1/+33I felt the article lacked detail.
    • Modestexcuse, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5I don't really think that it did. There were gobs of facts throughout, you just had to read them. I read them all. I know I'm right. I'm correct 9 out of 10 times, 50% of the time.

      /sarcasm
      • Myztry, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Sometimes while attempting wit, people only get halfway there. These people are known as half wits...
    • bRUTALkANOODLE, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I felt the article lacked. Kind of in general.
  • macweirdo42, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8I find this method to be particularly handy for winning any argument.
    http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id= ...
  • username7D8, on 05/16/2008, -3/+12you know its not a lie when a women starts a sentence with ... "A man once told me..."

    blah... dumb joke... go ahead... bury me why don't ya!
  • macweirdo42, on 05/16/2008, -1/+15You know, politicians are very helpful for this kind of thing. They make excellent ***** detectors - just have a politician repeat whatever statement it is you're trying to verify. If the politician can repeat it without flinching, then you know it's complete and utter *****.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+29That's it?

    Know your fallacies, never be wrong:
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    If logic was thaught at high-school level the entire country would gain 10 IQ points.
    That and methodology.

    Those two could save humanity from stupidity, so it won't happen.

    If America knew just a little bit about logic and fallacies, Iraq would've never happened. And election debates would be laughed at and ridiculed.
    • ssn697, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7So damn true. My kids have always had a huge advantage, because I taught them these (what I consider) basics.

      It is a sad truth that I also taught them 90% of their classmates were idiots, and will remain so.
    • UltramegaOK, on 05/16/2008, -6/+9I think the schools should focus on spelling first.

      You just earned -10 IQ points.

      • Nappuccino, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0Yes, because we all need to learn spelling in High School.
      • mcquitty, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Too bad he said "schools" and not "high schools".
        • Nappuccino, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0However, he was replying to a person talking about learning logic in high schools. I was pretty much making the same point as you, just at UltramegaOK

      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1wow, you totally changed the meaning of everything he said with an Ad Hominem* attack! Oh, no you didn't. The guy made a typo... but that didn't make you any smarter.

        *http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-homine ...
        • Nappuccino, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0However, he was replying to a person talking about learning logic in high schools.

          If anything, UltramegaOK is the one who changed the argument's meaning first.
        • Nappuccino, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0Sorry, Bury this and the post above it (The delete function didn't work too well...)
    • jwoelmer2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3here's another good list of fallacies according to their classification: http://www.cuyamaca.edu/brucethompson/Fallacies/in ...
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1with links to exercises! I feel like such a dork now...
    • masterm1nd, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1You obviously contain more intelligence than the sum of America.
  • HanFastolfe, on 05/16/2008, -2/+12One important component that the author completely missed was to use a spell checker, and proofread. Certain grammatical mistakes can be easily tolerated e.g. using a coma before and after quotation marks, but it shows much about a person who doesn't know the difference between your/you're, there/their/they're. One that really sticks out (to me) is the usage of weather, and whether. While, I, do believe that the content of the idea being presented (no matter how badly) is more important then the delivery, others are not so forgiving.

    Before even getting the ad hominem attack the use of profanity should be used more judiciously. Thrust me, I can swear like a drunken sailor, but it proves nothing. We've all heard it a million times, it's dull. If it's used against me I can/will respond in kind, but I have noticed IRL (as should all you) that one is treated differently by the way one speaks. Speak crude, and crassly, and you will be treated accordingly.

    Lastly, brevity, something that obviously I have a problem with. So I'll quit now, thanks.
    • suzywang3000, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7While, I, do believe that the content of the idea being presented (no matter how badly) is more important then the delivery, others are not so forgiving.

      "than"
      • HanFastolfe, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1+1 to you for being the embodiment of my point on forgiveness. I'll endeavorer to better.
    • sparsely, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7*thrusts you*
      • HanFastolfe, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I deserve that... I can only claim a caffeine deficiency (the first cup wasn't down yet). +1 to you as well for the same reason as suzywang3000.
        • zebraz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1One important component that the author completely missed was to use a spell checker, and proofread.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Form has no effect on validity.

      "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
      - Winston Churchill.
      • HanFastolfe, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I don't subscribe to form having no effect. Just that to belabor some grammatical nuance many times makes the respondent appear as a wonk. Even world class authors makes mistakes in their manuscripts. Since almost none of us are near that level I'm willing to grade on a curve (and give great deference for effort, since I know my struggles all too well).

        Is the average voter informed? Nope. The average anything is just that, average. There is an argument to be made for a voter competency test, but I'll defer to the concept that the more people that are involved the more they will feel that they are part of the nation at large. Although, the concept of a direct democracy is terrifying. I like the republican (little r) form of government as a buffer from mob rule.
    • deadfrank, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5comma is spelled with two "m's" and "trust" doesn't have an "h" in it.
      • hiikeeba, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Maybe he meant "thrust." In a weird way. I had a great joke when I clicked, but lost when it came time to type. Bury this please.
      • DivisibleByZero, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1(i think it was sarcasm to prove his point)
    • darzeecompany, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8Certain grammatical mistakes can be easily tolerated e.g. using a coma before and after quotation marks...

      I agree. If one slips into a coma before and after quoting someone, it's no fault of their own.
    • dixienormous101, on 05/16/2008, -3/+4@ Han

      You know what I have a problem with? Grammar/spelling/proofread nazis that ***** their own posts up with mistakes trying to prove how unintelligent people "are" by the way they articulate onto a keyboard.

      ....Your defense is offensive.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1When arguing on the Internet though, do pay attention to whether or not the guy with bad grammar is a native speaker of the language he's posting in.

      That said, I had a friend in college who moved to the US when she was 10 and used her African-ness as an excuse for poor grammar. By that time, she should have learned.
    • CamelToad, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Go thrust yourself.
  • aithk608, on 05/16/2008, -2/+11why do we need an article? you just have to yell "*****' thing SUCKS!" and you will win every time.
  • ZaZ2137, on 05/16/2008, -8/+2What? Like religion in general?
  • apophenic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7There are responses there that are longer than that article. Buried.
  • purkel, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3man... thats a terrible article. isnt it common sense that exaggerated generalizations are not facts? buried.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Sadly, no. At least not on Diggnation.
  • onetimer, on 05/16/2008, -4/+30If at any time in the argument, your opponent uses the phrase:

    "why do you hate:" "Freedom"/"Liberty"/"America"?"
  • KaiSe7eN, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Just pull a Kevin James and say at the top of your lungs "ENABLED, ENERGIZED, LEGITIMIZED!!!" about 3 or 4 times.
  • KMye, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Dugg not for the article, but for leading me to the CreateDebate site. Hadn't heard of it before; looks interesting.
  • deadfrank, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6dugg b/c the author uses "trend" as a keyword to implicate that someone is unsure/wrong, then uses "trend" in the fourth rule of his own argument.
  • UltramegaOK, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I find it amusing that they didn't once mention Aristotelian or Boolean logic.
    • ParanoydAndroid, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1That would probably be because neither are remotely useful for debate. Debaters need to have a handle on mathematical deductive logic (knowledge of the symbols is optional), all the rules that entails (modus ponens, etc ...), Socratic method, and fallacies.

      Along of course with factual knowledge about the topic, economics, government, etc ...
  • replaysMike, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8Winning a debate means you need to know stuff and not talk out your ass.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1You've obviously never watched a political debate. To win, all you have to do is suck less than the other loser and your minions worship at your feet like a god(ess).
      • Nappuccino, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Actually, all you have to do is ignore the question and talk about how much you love your family.
        • solinent, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1In which case you didn't win the debate, you just won the election. This is because you didn't answer the question, but you gave reasons as to why you should be elected.
        • Nappuccino, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0So any man who loves his family is fit to be president?

          I think the job calls for a bit more than just that, and that is the whole purpose of the debates: to get candidates talking about subjects that they will likely be dealing with as a president so that we can vote on the one who we think will do the best job as the leader of our country.
  • flashingcurser, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2The neat thing is that I can find a statistic supporting anything, does that mean I win every argument?
  • OutThisLife, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2When I debate I do it to learn from their side, and hopefully gain more knowledge. Then I give them my side. ;]
  • barf314, on 05/16/2008, -1/+11How to spot a weak argument: Look for comments with low ratings or comments that piss you off.
    How to destroy a weak argument: Bury.
    • Mr.Gone, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6I know you are but what am I?
    • B1663r, on 05/17/2008, -5/+1Incorrect, that is how to indulge in digg group think.

      I have been saying for a week that Obama is unelectable, and people have responded with... digging me down, calling me names, and calling me a liar, republican etc etc etc.. Very little counter argument...

      Then today, well there it is on the front page of Salon...

      Half the reason I argue is because every once in a while I get to say, ruefully

      NEENER NEENER!!! I was right and you were wrong!!!

      I told yah so!!!

      But thats one of the huge problems with gen-y, they ignore anything that doesn't inflate their egos some more, so they have ignored all the evidence that Obama... is unelectable.

      Oh well too late to do anything about it now.
      • cbittle, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I can't read your comment. You are buried too deep.
  • Mr.Gone, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3I am rubber and you are glue, everything bounces off me and sticks to you!
  • Spoomeister, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10How to Spot and Destroy Weak Digg Submissions: When they're so short and content-light, you can quote them in their entirety in a Digg comment, thereby depriving them of ad revenue they don't deserve. Like this...


    How to spot weak arguments When you’re debating, you’ll come up against many styles of arguing, based on all different levels of arguing. If you’re in the debate to win, you’ll have to spot the flaws in opposing arguments and point them out, or exploit them like a weak spot. Sometimes it’s as easy as listening for fuzzy words. Here are some words and phrases that are easy indications of flaws:

    many, all, a lot, every, none, nobody, much, more - Solid arguments use actual numbers with references to their source. These words can indicate implied statistics that show the debater is making up a fact rather than working off real data. Example: “Many Christians disagree”

    never, always, usually, tend, trend - These may be blanket statements that imply cause and effect, or assumptions about overall responses and opinions that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Example: “the rich have always been getting richer”

    I, I don’t think, I believe - including yourself in the argument can indicate thinking personal experience equals the overall trend. If the debate is not a poll or about individual views, this can be Hasty Generalization.

    Here are some examples from CreateDebate:

    From: Should the US have seatbelt laws?
    Someone who manages to use words from two categories:
    “I always choose to wear one”

    From: Man vs. Elephant : can you escape?
    “I am much more shifty than an elephant and would be able to escape if ONE was chasing me in a large field by cutting and weaving.”

    and one rebuttal that found the critical flaw:

    “Elephants charge at up to 25mph. Way faster than you can run…”

    So next time you’re arguing with friends or proving your point in an online debate, listen in for these hints for weak arguments and when you make your response make it stronger by avoiding the same flaws.
  • sonoran, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5Wow! Must be a slow news day, to promote this thing to the fp.
    • pheliak, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1twice from createdebate this week. spam.
  • xtinamo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2I don't think this article makes a valid argument as I always tend to use these tactics and nobody usually disagrees with me.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I have to disagree with you.
    • davidlick, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Debate only works when you are in an argument with an intelligent logical person.

      "That's a stupid idea," is what I get for trying to debate with unintelligent people. Don't even bother asking "why" because they can't articulate what they mean or why.
  • theficus, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Well, I believe that article was a waste of time to read. Many Digg users will agree with me.

    Seriously, though, if this article were anything useful it would go into things like identifying and exposing logical fallacies, straw-man arguments, and shoot down redirection (which is exactly what's done with that stupid elephant argument). Of course, that's just my opinion. Oops, according to that article, I just ended up invalidating my own argument.
  • ileftfark, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Dude, I never bitch about the content on Digg- I understand how things work around here. But don't you guys even check the stories before you shoutspam crap like this to the front page anymore? I mean, what the *****, Digg?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2You're not new to digg but you obviously haven't been paying attention. Here's how digg works. Digger #1 posts an article. Digger #1 then "shouts" out to 1000 "friends" on Digg begging them to digg his article in return he promises to digg theirs when shouted. This of course generates traffic resulting in ads being displayed which leads to ad revenue for Digger #1. As you can see, nowhere in this process does the content, accuracy, or entertainment value of the article become a factor.
      • ileftfark, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I get all that, I just... I don't know, thought that there was *some* amount of integrity and/or discern over content...

        You're right, I haven't been paying enough attention.
  • akphidelt, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0"That doesn't make sense?"
    "It doesn't have to. I'm beautiful!"

    My philosophy to winning an argument
  • coresnake, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9"Thats what she said"
    Argument won.
  • gimmeslack12, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Two words usually do the trick: "Prove it."
    Game. Set. Match.
    • djloekee27, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1that's my favorite "prove it"

      i was debatin' a guy over an inaccuracy of an anime's english subtitles so i asked him to translate it for me.

      i think i pissed him off when i told him that a person who doesn't speak japanese has ZERO credibility when it comes to tellin' people that the english subs for a japanese tv show is wrong.
  • boot20, on 05/16/2008, -0/+10The quick method:
    1) Read Digg
    2) Read rebuttals that site actual sources and have a strong basis in measurable data
    3) Watch that rebuttal be dugg down into oblivion
  • Nemoso, on 05/16/2008, -4/+0http://dogtoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/argui ...

    Old meme, but still true.
  • Yage2006, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4I found learning logical fallacy's also very important in debating.
    For example these -> http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.a ...
    Its also a very good filter for seeing through the bullsh!t that you see everyday.

  • Labourer, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2This article is kind of funny in that it makes light of terms such as many, a lot etc , citing the fact that effective argument should be backed up with hard numbers. it is very easy to play with numbers. Enron for instance.
    • solinent, on 05/17/2008, -0/+370% of all statistics are made up, in fact.
      • Labourer, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1do your statistics fall in the 70% or 30%

  • tendonut, on 05/16/2008, -5/+4I was in an argument with a guy on YouTube (I know, i'm wasting my time, i'm a tool) about the capability of the Xbox 360 outputting 1080p natively on some games. The guy refused to believe it because the 360 uses DVDs, despite me being able to cite TONS of websites that say that it can regardless of the format. (NBA Street Homecourt and Virtua Tennis 3 are native 1080p)

    My point is, after a while, he starting breaking out personal insults like saying my mom was cheating on my dad with a black guy and refuses to cite sources after repeated attempts to get him to do it. He SWORE N4G said the Xbox 360 was incapable of it, but after I found a few N4G articles that display a list of games and their native resolutions, the personal insults just got out of control. I think he gave up after trying to act like HE was the one arguing that it was possible and I said it wasn't. Clever. It was rather comical.

    Personal Insults are evidence of a weak argument.
  • havokzero, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Burried, because I don't want anybody else to read this.

    It's mine, my own...
  • hiikeeba, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Just three ways? And two of them can be consolidated into one : Generalizations. Hardly the nuclear option of ending an argument.
  • havokzero, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Buried, because I don't want anybody else to read this.

    It's mine, my own...
  • pookkake, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0white meat?
    OGC
    • Tibin05, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1When you get physically cut really deep you can see white flesh.
  • Aggrocragg, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Two things the article missed (but kind of alludes to):

    1) Lack of specifics: "An elephant can run fast, but I can run faster." This could be true, but without knowing how fast either runs, the arguer is essentially asking you to take their word for it. "An elephant can run at 25mph, but I can run at 30mph." This is harder to refute since it actually requires the other person to have a knowledge of how fast elephants and humans can run or enough time to research it. (Elephants can run at 15mph, while Michael Johnson was clocked at about 22mph.)

    2) Jumps in logic: "I can run fast and can cut and weave. Therefore, I could escape a charging elephant." There are two jumps in logic here. First, the arguer has to prove that he can outrun an elephant (see previous example). Next, as a fall-back argument, the arguer has to prove that cutting and weaving is an effective strategy since elephants cannot turn that fast, cannot visually track someone cutting and weaving, or something else that would prevent the elephant from catching up to him.

    The link someone posted in the comments on that page also covers some good logical fallacies: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.a ...
    • akatherder, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1What the hell? The whole point was that he could not outrun the elephant, but he could outmaneuver it. This is a discussion of the maneuverability and acceleration of an elephant. Velocity is not the key point to debate. Yet you barely touch on that in the end of number 2 on your list.

      Consider a school bus chasing you. If you're a retard and run in a straight line, it's not going to take long to get up to speed and run you down. If you double back, it won't be able to catch you. So the only thing we're going out on a limb on with this debate is the fact that elephants are nimble and maneuverable.
      • Aggrocragg, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I didn't meant to debate the finer points of elephant escape, I meant to debate the finer points of debating. If someone is facing down a charging elephant, they're probably not thinking about an elephant's velocity, acceleration, and turning ability, they're probably thinking "*****!!!" and running like hell.
    • Andysan, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1If some dumb guy is in a field with an angry elephant, I would bet on the elephant every time. How is that for logic?
      • Aggrocragg, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Agreed, sounds like a Darwin Award in the making!
  • Stevethegreat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Hell yeah! Now find a way to sneak in our schools what constitutes a sound argument and what is not and the very next day the FOX journalism and pretty much, much of the Media's journalism would go out of the window. Give people means of rational inquiry and you make a country to be a lot less of a mess than it is today......
  • JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Or you can do what Chris Matthews does and make sure you book an idiot to debate with.
  • LZeppelinJ0, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I'd love to hear what our language would sound like if nobody used blanket statements, implied statistics, generalizations and "fuzzy" words. A lot of people would have black eyes!
  • rabbott, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1A useful article needs to be written...

    How to Spot & Destroy Weak Arguments with your Girlfriend/Wife/Mistress/Delusional Ex

    I would pay $$$$ for an article like that. Today.
    • ParanoydAndroid, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Hahahaha. I was a nationally ranked debater with the best record in my state 2 years running. My advice:
      You Lose.

      Don't argue, whatever it is, you're wrong and arguing will only make it worse.
  • DivisibleByZero, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2At first I thought, "here's something a lot of people on Digg could use!", but then I realized it was written by one of the people who needs it. Here's what the article REALLY said:

    1) many, all, not, much, more - If you quote a statistic, people will mistakenly listen to your opinion, even if you've completely misinterpreted the stats. For example: "50% of all Americans earn below the median income! This is an outrage!"

    2) never, always, usually, tend, trend - Instead of using a broad word, back it up with a specific number that doesn't mean anything! For example, "global warming is BS because last year's average temperature was .5 degrees lower than the year before!"

    3) I, I don't think, I believe - The true key to a successful argument is to state your opinion as fact. Rather than saying, "I don't think a fetus should be granted the same rights as another person," you should be saying "fetuses aren't people! n00bz!". THEN people will listen to you.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.