I think a lot of people's bad arguments online are a reaction to other people's bad arguments | Forum

(Last edited by Savant on )

#1

I was thinking about how a lot of the front-page Reddit political posts seem like strawmen of the opposition, even more so when looking at specific communities devoted to one viewpoint or another. But if your exposure to right-wing arguments is based on videos of people like this, and the post is read as a response to those people, then they make a bit more sense. That said, just because I can understand why people would make posts targeting the lowest intellectual tier of the opposition, I don't think it's particularly useful.

Example:

Mathematician: I think I found a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.

Idiot #1: 1+1 = The Riemann hypothesis

Idiot #2: The Riemann hypothesis is true because Kim Jong Un said so.

Idiot #3: The Riemann hypothesis is true because astrology

Internet Arguer: Look at idiots 1, 2, and 3, and their terrible arguments for the Riemann hypothesis.

While the criticism from the internet arguer is probably true, it's probably more productive to answer the question of whether the Riemann hypothesis is true, you should probably respond to what the mathematician has to say rather than focusing on the endless supply of idiots out there. However, a lot of online forums are structured in a less than ideal way to prioritize clicks and don't allow the mathematician to rise to the top.

During Remy's trial, this line of thought occurred to me, because the defendant's posts all seemed like over-the-top strawmen, but he would link to rage-bait posts off the platform and say those were worse, and if I read his posts as a response to those, then I could see where he was getting this image of the opposition from.

Basically, I think someone will see people making strawmen arguments on r/politics and get downvoted when they try to respond/their comment gets buried. So they go to r/conservative to somewhere more aligned with them and argue against those arguments, but it comes across as a strawmen because people who disagree with them on r/conservative don't make the bad argument they're responding to. So those people call it a strawman and their comments get buried or they get banned, and the cycle continues.

I think places like DebateCraft or Discord or even real life can lead to more productive arguments. But I think people carry a lot habits from places like Reddit which causes them to strawman the opposition and often makes discussion more difficult. I've interacted with a fair number of people where they were using certain definitions or responding to certain arguments they assumed were universal and I had to clarify what their argument actually was before the discussion could move forward. I think a possible solution for this is when entering a new forum, don't assume your ideological opponents are as dumb as they were on the other forum, but this might be difficult to get people to stick to.

Edit comment

Mentions Text*

I was thinking about how a lot of the front-page Reddit political posts seem like <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1vr1lvg/i_want_to_get_off_off_mr_bones_wild_ride/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">strawmen of the opposition</a>, even more so when looking at specific communities devoted to one viewpoint or another. But if your exposure to right-wing arguments is based on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVx8gCAF3D8" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">videos of people like this</a>, and the post is read as a response to those people, then they make a bit more sense. That said, just because I can understand why people would make posts targeting the lowest intellectual tier of the opposition, I don't think it's particularly useful. Example: Mathematician: I think I found a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.Idiot #1: 1+1 = The Riemann hypothesisIdiot #2: The Riemann hypothesis is true because Kim Jong Un said so.Idiot #3: The Riemann hypothesis is true because astrologyInternet Arguer: Look at idiots 1, 2, and 3, and their terrible arguments for the Riemann hypothesis. While the criticism from the internet arguer is probably true, it's probably more productive to answer the question of whether the Riemann hypothesis is true, you should probably respond to what the mathematician has to say rather than focusing on the endless supply of idiots out there. However, a lot of online forums are structured in a less than ideal way to prioritize clicks and don't allow the mathematician to rise to the top. During Remy's trial, this line of thought occurred to me, because the defendant's posts all seemed like over-the-top strawmen, but he would link to rage-bait posts off the platform and say those were worse, and if I read his posts as a response to those, then I could see where he was getting this image of the opposition from. Basically, I think someone will see people making strawmen arguments on r/politics and get downvoted when they try to respond/their comment gets buried. So they go to r/conservative to somewhere more aligned with them and argue against those arguments, but it comes across as a strawmen because people who disagree with them on r/conservative don't make the bad argument they're responding to. So those people call it a strawman and their comments get buried or they get banned, and the cycle continues. I think places like DebateCraft or Discord or even real life can lead to more productive arguments. But I think people carry a lot habits from places like Reddit which causes them to strawman the opposition and often makes discussion more difficult. I've interacted with a fair number of people where they were using certain definitions or responding to certain arguments they assumed were universal and I had to clarify what their argument actually was before the discussion could move forward. I think a possible solution for this is when entering a new forum, don't assume your ideological opponents are as dumb as they were on the other forum, but this might be difficult to get people to stick to.

#2

@Savant

⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

(Last edited by Savant on )

#3

@SatanLucy

I think if someone isn't making a deductive argument, he is not making argument at all.

The deductive argument will rely on premises, and you'll need to use inductive reasoning for a premise sooner or later, which is kicking the can down the road. Technically I think you could formalize everything into deductive logic plus a priori premises, but that makes it way less readable. Also, I think most arguments have an implicit deductive argument that's obvious from reading it.

Like if I say "killing homeless people is bad, it violates their rights," people reading it know my argument is basically

P1: If killing homeless people violates their rights, it is bad

P2: Killing homeless people violates their rights

C1: Killing homeless people is bad

But by using more casual language, I can pack more substance into fewer words. Like your comment that I'm responding to right now isn't using deductive logic, but I still get your point.

A lot of people would improve their arguments if they actually placed them in form of premises and conclusion.

You know, this is probably true. Maybe you have a point.

Tho I sometimes start to wonder if debating is a productive activity. At some points, it does feel like it leads to nowhere.

I don't think you can really learn much without seeing an argument for or against something. Back when I wanted to form a better position on an issue, I'd go to one subreddit echo chamber and argue with them until I didn't have a good counter, then go to the opposite echo chamber sub and argue with them, and so on, until one of the echo chambers couldn't really address my points in my view. I think only like 10% of debates lead to significant new info being learned, but everything that's learned is from the 10%. Though for someone more open to new viewpoints, it might be more like 90%.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

<blockquote>I think if someone isn't making a deductive argument, he is not making argument at all.</blockquote>The deductive argument will rely on premises, and you'll need to use inductive reasoning for a premise sooner or later, which is kicking the can down the road. Technically I think you could formalize everything into deductive logic plus a priori premises, but that makes it way less readable. Also, I think most arguments have an implicit deductive argument that's obvious from reading it. Like if I say "killing homeless people is bad, it violates their rights," people reading it know my argument is basically P1: If killing homeless people violates their rights, it is badP2: Killing homeless people violates their rightsC1: Killing homeless people is bad But by using more casual language, I can pack more substance into fewer words. Like your comment that I'm responding to right now isn't using deductive logic, but I still get your point. <blockquote>A lot of people would improve their arguments if they actually placed them in form of premises and conclusion.</blockquote>You know, this is probably true. Maybe you have a point. <blockquote>Tho I sometimes start to wonder if debating is a productive activity. At some points, it does feel like it leads to nowhere.</blockquote>I don't think you can really learn much without seeing an argument for or against something. Back when I wanted to form a better position on an issue, I'd go to one subreddit echo chamber and argue with them until I didn't have a good counter, then go to the opposite echo chamber sub and argue with them, and so on, until one of the echo chambers couldn't really address my points in my view. I think only like 10% of debates lead to significant new info being learned, but everything that's learned is from the 10%. Though for someone more open to new viewpoints, it might be more like 90%.

#4

@Savant

⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#5

⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#6

@SatanLucy

The first premise can be either observation (induction)

I mean if inductive argument is allowed, it would mean other forms of argument than deduction are allowed.

I agree that premises and conclusion are usually longer version of saying same thing, but it's useful to check the argument.

Sure but it could mean extending a 500 word argument to several thousand words if everything is put in terms of deductive logic, and it would often just be more confusing.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#7

@Savant

⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

<blockquote>if inductive argument is allowed, it would mean other forms of argument than deduction are allowed</blockquote> They aren't two separate forms. They go together. Induction on its own is usually useless unless it is part of deductive argument. <blockquote>a 500 word argument to several thousand words if everything is put in terms of deductive logic</blockquote> Not everything needs to be in form of deductive logic, but framework needs to. You can make argument:P1. Smoking is harmfulP2. If something is harmful, then it shouldn't be done.C. Smoking shouldn't be done Then you can go with proving P1 and P2 with observations, logic and whatever. It is very difficult to make framework or main argument without deductive logic. You can make smaller sub-arguments without deductive logic, but something still needs to connect them to topic, and induction alone rarely does that.

(Last edited by Savant on )

#8

@SatanLucy

Induction on its own is usually useless unless it is part of deductive argument.

Well it proves one of the premises on its own so it is useful for something. If you can use it for that, why can't you use it for some larger argument?

You can make argument:

P1. Smoking is harmful

P2. If something is harmful, then it shouldn't be done.

C. Smoking shouldn't be done

I feel like it's easier to make the argument "Smoking shouldn't be done" than it is to argue for P2. Cause like vaccines are also harmful cause they hurt in the moment, so now you gotta defend banning those when originally you just had to argue against smoking.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#9

@Savant

You just need better informed members to make good arguments.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#10

@Savant

⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#11

@Savant

⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#12

@Savant

⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#13

@SatanLucy

Smoking causes cancer.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#14

@Savant

What you qualify as 'bad arguments by the lowest tier' seems to be the norm on social media by regular folks mimicking arguments 'approved by' people who should know better.

The problem is that these arguments are disingenuous emotional appeals which typically bypass rationality. I think that is generally by design, especially when it comes to politics and religion.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens

#15

@SkepticalOne

regular folks mimicking arguments 'approved by' people who should know better

The problem is that these arguments are disingenuous emotional appeals which typically bypass rationality

I mean, there's gonna be an endless supply of these disingenuous arguments for the forseeable future. I'm not sure that going for the low-hanging fruit is going to make much progress in actually solving most of these issues.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#16

@Savant

I dont disagree, but I think you are assuming argumentation equates to rational debate...thats not even true of debate here among, presumably, people who understand what debate is.

How do we fix it?

Edit post

Mentions Text*

Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens

#17

@SkepticalOne

Get better debaters.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#18

@Debby, @SkepticalOne

Debby wrote:

Get better debaters.

Yep, like you can pop down the supermarket and fill a trolley.

To put together a good debate, demands dedication and oodles of time.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#19

@SergeantLynch

But they are out there.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#20

@Debby

There are all sorts "out there".

But comparatively, very few here.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#21

@SergeantLynch

They will come around once they find this a good debating site.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#22

Maybe.

Though I would suggest that bad argument is relative to the method, content and quality of acquired data and the application thereof.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#23

@SergeantLynch

A bad argument is failing to understand the subject under discussion.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

Conversation

Edit comment

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post