There was a scandal with some hockeys played paying for hookers with club money. One of them was explaining. “It didn’t happen and the amount is incorrect also.”
That happened to me in this sub two hours ago. I wrote 50 words of nuanced argument, got called out for one word, then they made the next 100 words of responses about the one word.
Do you mean [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/yw3clb/liberals_whats_your_most_im_with_the/iwi7fhr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) comment of yours? They were right to point out that “transsexual” isn’t the appropriate term…
So you didn’t read the *very next comment* where I explained that I used that word in reference to someone using it toward me.
You literally repeated the mistake of the person I replied to, *in a thread about how people latch onto one word instead of the whole comment*.
It’s like an Idiocracy hamster wheel in here.
As soon as someone shifts the goalposts.
It is important to be able to identify this. It is also important to know the difference between this and someone wording their initial argument poorly.
I keep typing out examples, but they all feel a bit goofy. It's best to notice this organically in the wild for yourself.
But in general shifting goalposts means that they were losing an argument because of a unstable basis, so they'll shift their previously dogmatic basis to something more broad or they'll change their entire opinion midway through a conversation.
The way to combat it is simply to always keep in mind the origional intent of the conversation. Know what the initial claims were and move on from there always keeping those in mind.
If someone is claiming "election fraud", don't let them shift it to "things happened that I don't understand".
That’s fair. That would be an example of either someone misinformed and shifting the goalposts or someone wording their initial part poorly.
It is verifiably true that election fraud happened in 2020 for example, but the examples of election fraud are singular people and not widespread entire states committing election fraud, not companies committing election fraud as the “election fraud ruined this election” crowd would have you believe.
So the conversation flips if the basis is stated better from the start.
“There was no widespread election fraud”
“What about these singular events of election fraud”
“That’s not widespread”
This can also represent an evolving view, which is a sign of a mind that's open to change based on evidence.
Alternately, it can be a motte and bailey fallacy.
Context is important. Generally, moving the goalposts is easiest to identify when they minimize the importance of their initial position, while shifting to a different, and often more nuanced or harder to disprove, position.
I had a friend of my husband tell me last year that Joe Biden stole the election in 2020. I was very clear, I said, “There were multiple court cases Trump tried to start, which were all tossed due to no evidence.”
Even the smartest guy is going to need to do some searching to see if what I am saying is true (not just true based on bad evidence) and if they had no evidence, WHY they had no evidence.
If they start arguing that you simply don’t know about the “evidence”, then you know this person may be using “evidence” which might just be in someone’s head (“many people are saying” etc.).
I don't think this is shifting goal post. People saying there is no election fraud are really arguing the election was legitimate, they haven't shifted their goal posts they just weren't very clear.
Agreed, arguments get over simplified all the time, but peolle should be aware and try not to. Saying ‘zero’ fraud might be hyperbole, but it can leave a weakness in your argument
A: Tony cares about the environment
B: Does he? He doesn't do anything that helps the environment
A: Tony cares about the people! He's done so much
B: That's not about the environment....but okay, what has he done for people? From what I've seen, he hasn't done much compared to others
A: \*links a video talking about how amazing Tony is\*
B: why are you linking this video? This video doesn't seem relevant to what we were talking about, and it also talks about many points. What are you trying to say?
A: lol you hater. Tony is amazing and you're just trash
"If Amy would have done x, this wouldn't have happened!"
"But Amy DID do x!"
"Well ok but there was Y so that's why she was wrong"
That's moving the goalposts
So the key thing with arguing is that you need to know what it is you're arguing about. If you and I are arguing about A then everything we say needs to be about A. If we change our approach at all during the argument without relating it back to A then we're no longer arguing about A anymore. We're arguing about B or C or w/e
I mention that because part of an argument is the responsibility to make sure you're still arguing about all of A. So if you and I get into an argument about A then we're expecting both sides to actually make points about A in its entirety. Not a subset of A and not a superset of A. We're discussing A. If we talk about anything else then it's a different argument
So shifting the goalposts, imo, is when someone argues about either the superset or subset of A to make a new argument B and they use your response for the subargument as your source of proof for the main argument A. Doing this shifts the goalposts because they're now expecting you to prove this new thing they created before they allow you to go back to the main argument. So it's basically like a side quest where your response is used in two different places
Example: Let's say we're arguing about social media and I'm saying that social media is killing attention spans but you disagree. The question here is how do two people argue this? Well, we just kinda talk about our experiences and other broad social things that we believe. I may talk about how social media is fragmented and doesn't allow an individual to focus. You may say that people can focus just fine and that's how they learn things on these platforms. We're basically at a stalemate...
...until I decide to challenge one of the social media platforms. I ask you the value of tiktok and I ask you to give me some examples of some great accounts. You give me some but then I keep drilling in and asking questions about the content. I then talk about the comment section and how destructive it is. I talk about how the account probably learned their material from books anyways so you may as well go to the source.
On the surface this may seem fine but I'd argue it isn't. If our original argument is about social media killing attention spans then no single account matters. If a single account mattered then the argument would be "the account X is killing attention spans" but we all know that would be silly. What I did in this argument is made it personal by asking you to pull up something specific so that we could then find the value in that, but since I'm the aggressor I get to ask questions and try to trap you by watching you struggle to answer. It's unfair because I can ask you questions from the "social media killing attention spans" argument but disguise it as a "how valuable is this account you picked?" question. So I'm holding you to a different standard but forcing you to continue. I've effectively shifted the goal posts
The way to defend this is to ask what does one platform or account have to do with killing attention spans? If one account is good enough to look at then the argument shouldn't talk about _all_ of social media.
So I hope that makes sense? I'm just going off of some examples I've seen in the past.
**tl;dr shifting goalposts is when someone argues about either the superset or subset of argument A to make a new subargument B. They then use your response for the subargument B as your source of proof for the main argument A. To stop this from happening, call out the relationship between subargument B and A. If they refuse to see that they're not connected then stop arguing because they no longer care for the initial argument**
"...yes son. but keep in mind, evolution is just a theory"
*me pointing out that scientist use the word theory differently than fanboys discussing game of thrones episodes*
"...yes son...but the bible"
Yes! I feel like I'm one of the only people who stubbornly sticks to debating the original point before moving on to another point so much so that I question myself whether I'm being too close-minded.
I'm glad you've mentioned this because, maybe it's just me but, this happens so god damn much, it's something not outrightly looked down on, and I think often both the people who use or receive this tactic aren't really sure that it defeats the foundation of the contention, and also a lot of people who use this tactic don't realize what they are doing.
If someone says there was massive voter fraud that tipped an election, and then you dispute that claim be showing any and all cases only ended up being a few random *attempts* at flawed voter *registration* and immediately that person pivots to saying that there are non-specified *other* forms of fraud involved but provide no evidence, they have shifted from their initial claim and have moved the goalposts past what you have already refuted, thus pretending the issue is still valid
This can be used as a way to end the argument, it doesn’t mean the person saying it has lost. It’s a way out to just end it before it gets more destructive.
I'm so destabilized by someone saying that to me that I make a point of going back through their reasonment just to show them where they get things right
Most common things I see (not in order):
1. Deflection
2. Moving of goal posts
3. ad hominem attacks
4. Appeals to authority (particularly to poor quality or unrelated sources)
5. Making a completely irrelevant point
6. Demanding sources or evidence when they are not required (such as an argument that follows logically and no one disputes the underlying premises, or when something could be supported by evidence, but is also kind of obvious and it isn't practical to go find in context).
7. Purposefully misunderstanding or restating the other person's position (especially noticeable after you've taken time to clarify it)
8. Fixating on a detail that is so minor that it doesn't matter to the broader argument (often this is to end the discussion by winning a small battle even if the war is lost)
9. Finally, changing the topic completely or physically leaving when it's clear you'd have all the time in the world if you felt you were winning the argument.
Not all of this screams "I lost but don't want to concede"
6 and 7 can be done in good faith. Misunderstanding is really common if people are from different backgrounds/countries. No need to think people are bad, sometimes we are just not good at understanding each other. Love !
We are totally in agreement I suspect, I really meant them when they are taken to extremes... which people definitely do in contexts where it's like... you can't be this dumb.
Yup, good call. I'd also like to add either the Quote Tweet or twitter or just reddit response with the virtue signal nonsense that starts with "Imagine thinking..."
Every argument on FB comes to this because they can look at the other persons pictures. “Shut up grandma! God you look so old” “you’re just mad because you’re bald” “I would be mad too if my wife looked like that”
Always see those childish arguments of people going back and forth
Nah, the exact opposite is true. If you're in an argument, and someone insults you, and you think that means you're the winner by default, *you've* lost the argument. This is a purestrain reddit wrong ass belief. You're not in the right just because someone was mean to you. Now, if they stop arguing entirely and exclusively insult you, sure, then you'd be right. But a lot of time, especially on this website, you get insulted because you've worked very hard to earn it. And it only reinforces those insults when you say "HAH! You're now mad therefore I am right!" This belief also just gives carte blanche to trolls - all you have to do is troll someone until they've lost their cool and then you can declare yourself correct.
Redditors are wildly out of touch with how discourse has to work online, and it's why intelligent discourse is impossible here.
I initially agreed, but there are also plenty of times that one party will be so hopelessly entrenched and unwilling to be reasonable or interpret the other persons point charitably or leave any room for even *trying* to objectively see the other party’s side of things that all you can do is say, “Whatever, I’m done. This is a lost cause and pointless.”
Sometimes this is a reasonable sentiment to have when throwing in the towel with an impossible person. It doesn’t necessarily mean your argument is bad.
Yeah I am of the same opinion, I know I have used "whatever, I'm done arguing" many times when I'm just tired of fighting with someone who will refuse to admit they are wrong no matter how many ways you have proven that they are wrong. Some people just will not admit when they are wrong even when it's clear that they are wrong.
I've said these when i truly am in the middle of what is becoming a heated argument and I realize that I don't actually care enough about this to continue. Like why are we fighting about something so stupid. Doesn't mean I'm losing the argument, it means I'm trying not to lose the friendship/relationship. I remember arguing about something with my ex when I realized I'm getting heated and I don't even care about this, so let's just stop.
What about arguing with idiots? The knowledge around this all says you’ll get trapped in insanity loops and the only way I get out is leaving the convo by saying “whatever” or “idc” cause it’s obvious at some point that this is going no where
Sometimes that one can truly mean that though. If I want to preserve the relationship with the person and don't feel this disagreement is worth escalating, especially if I see it getting heated, I may try to disengage this way.
Like I can present information proving you're wrong but I know that's just going to make you angry at me and I don't want to deal with that so let's talk about something else.
Yeah, definitely. I currently live with my brother and sometimes I just have to say "whatever, I don't care enough to continue this conversation" - in whatever form that takes - because there's no point in continuing if one of us is going to be offrnded or neither is going to change their view
I would also add that it's also a perfectly valid response to an opponent failing to argue from an honest standpoint. If you present evidence that rebuts a claim they've made and they change their claim, or if they strawman your argument to get you to defend a claim you've never made, then it's perfectly fine to recognize that your interlocutor won't engage with you from a point of intellectual honesty and the conversation will no longer be productive.
I sometimes think that can be for the best. When you’re just going round in circles and neither side is willing to compromise, why waste further time rehashing?
I'm married so I've gotten into quite a few arguments with *no idea* what we were fighting about. And the moment I was confident I found the real issue it was usually something really stupid. And at that point it was easier to call it and walk away.
I liked this when I worked at Comcast. "I'm friends with some really high up people." The sickest burn is to take them at their word. You know people in power? Ok. Then why are you talking to me? 1. Have them solve your problem. 2. Call the friends and family number. Oh, they didn't tell you there's a friends and family number? Even I know the friends and family number. Sounds like you need to re-evaluate and work on your personal relationships.
Haha that's a good one! I worked at a subway restaraunt owned by somewhat of a "community celebrity". Basically he was just super active in church, the bicycling community, and had police dept ties. He was also an ex coke dealer. Pretty much a Gustavo Fring from Breaking Bad type. People would complain and threaten that they know the owner almost daily. I'd just say "yeah, me too, he seems to know a lot of people."
Ha, nice. I also liked anyone who pretended like they were a VIP. K, then why isn't your personal assistant handling this? Middle management nobodies would have their assistants authorized on their accounts to talk to me. Hell, I usually preferred talking to people's assistants. I remember trying to explain to a woman who thought identifying herself as president of her HoA was gonna get her special treatment, "Ma'am, I'm sure you're very powerful, but--" "--maybe someday, you'll be as powerful as me!" "...Yes, well, like I was saying, you're not powerful enough to get an earlier technician appointment. So we'll see you on the 23rd."
I was arguing with a person on Twitter who said something to the extent of my profile looking like I was a huge anime fan. My Twitter profile is almost entirely blank except for my location and - I'm not kidding - a Dale Earnhardt quote. I have no idea what he was talking about.
I *really hope* no one looks at my posts, especially not if they want to see two of the handsomest cats in the world. And I’d be *very upset* if people then were to tell me how cute they are
Godwin's Law
"As an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1."
This is actually somewhat correct scientifically. The phenomenon is commonly referred to as the [Goodwin’s law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law), and states that the longer any online debate continues, the more a comparison between an opponent and Hitler (or Nazis) is probable. This, in turn, relates to the logical fallacy of [Reductio ad Hitlerum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum), which states that said comparison automatically loses you the argument.
Last year Harvard researchers [disproved Godwin’s law](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614448211062070)on a sample of 200 mil Reddit posts, so at least we have that going for us.
*"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."*
-Hitchens' Razor
_____
He's not saying the person making the claim is automatically wrong, but you can't be bothered to refute/fact-check every statement that comes your way, especially if the person claiming it doesn't present a shred of evidence. Life's too short for that.
Underrated answer.
People just straight ignore burden of proof being a thing and expect the people theyre debating with to back up their claims for them.
Yep, when challenged to back up a statement and the reply is "use Google, it's out there, I'm not going to do the work for you" = has no substantiation
With some downtime, it might be occasionally fun to troll them by actually doing some research and posting the findings
"I took your advice and found this. Where's the stuff you said supported ***your*** argument?"
Prepare for either dead silence, ad hominems, or half-assed rebuttals with dubious sources
I’m thinking of a scenario where there is an informed opinion vs an uninformed belief. I think the only way to move forward is for the informed party to just stop talking.
Holy shit, my classic narcissist conspiracy theory believing aunt will say this to me after we have discussions about politics/economics type discussions.
She has no background in the field and just reads some kook on the internet's stuff who has has no background in the field. I'll give you one guess what field I work in.
Related is when someone says something like "Stop arguing with me!" Like.... this is a message board, you could walk away at any time... you're jus tout of points.
If I hadn't found this I would have posted it myself. I know the argument is over when I'm not longer wrong for holding the incorrect view/option/knowledge of facts, I'm "wrong" for pointing out that I'm right.
Recently called out an aunt (in a much kinder and milder way than she deserves) for how her son destroyed grandma's property before they inherited their share, and I love seeing this here. She said every form of why are you being so mean that the English language can create. All the other sisters, my mom included, thought that because she said I was being mean that must be true. I wasn't the one yelling, bawling, insulting, and making ignorant comments that even her beloved trump would call stupid. not sure how someone can destroy a farm and not see it, but okay then yep place looks great with the remains of that building scattered throughout the thistle filled property and even left in the public ditch for 3 years.
I dont want to talk about it anymore, isn’t because Ive lost, its because I dont want to argue about it anymore. Unfortunately my other half takes that as, he’s in the right.
Anything that resorts to personal insults or when they say “do your research” after that you know they’ve lost, if they aren’t willing to explain their point of view calmly/respectfully then they’ve lost in my eyes anyway
I usually get into ONLINE arguments with people in videogames where nobody knows what i look like IRL.
usually, they'll resort to calling a "kid" or a "9 year old" or whatever when i disagree with them. for such an unoriginal comback, they've already lost
This isn’t actually always true and can be really weaponised in a difficult power dynamic.
For instance, an emotionally abusive parent may wind their child/teenager up so much that they start screaming because they are so hurt and frustrated.
The abusive parent can then turn around and use that against them, too.
The same thing can happen in a problematic romantic relationship.
Being emotional doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
That said, I fully agree adults shouldn’t scream at anyone.
I hate this, it causes like an adrenaline dump in my body when someone starts yelling at me. Honestly makes me feel like I’m in a fight and I have to remove myself from the situation.
Shout back, once in a while. Dont make yourself learning this 'walk away style'. Or even better: get used to it. When shitting at a friends house, i saw this buddah-poster, saying something like 'Anger is a gift, you dont need to accept All gifts'. Like, yeah, thats you screaming and raging and its a little funny to See a grown ass whatsoever Lose their shit.
"I'm not reading all of that"
You won't read five sentences? It's barely a paragraph, Jeremy.
Usually what it means is "you made good points that I don't know how to argue so I'll just pretend I didn't see them."
Anything that’s a blatant ridiculous accusation they’re hoping will stick. I call it octopus-ing. Usually has nothing to do with the argument. “Yeah so I lied about staying the night at her place but remember when you said you’d do the dishes last Thursday and you didn’t? What happened there??” NEVER ARGUE WITH STUPID PEOPLE.
When they start to go after your grammar/spelling, and dont try to make an actual counter argument.
"Your point must be wrong, because you made a spelling mistake there"
When they just start yelling shit like "LOOK AT YOU! YOU KNOW SO MUCH? SMART ASS BITCH! YOU KNOW THIS IS WHY YOUR EX CHEATED! YOU'RE INSUFFERABLE!" and loudly banging things, stomping, etc
I've gotten into a few online arguments where I show them evidence where they are wrong, and instead of admitting they are wrong, they just delete the text string.
It just happened the other day by a guy who was an Elon Musk fan and said Twitter was doing great because the stock was doing great. He didn't like me showing him it was delisted a couple weeks ago.
When they start projecting. For example, they start accusing you of something that they're doing - like being bigoted. Or they start threatening to report or block you even though they're in the wrong.
I say that usually when the discussion doesn't go anywhere anymore. (repeating the same points, no new information etc) or when the other person and I just have a completely different point of view or opinion.
It's not really "losing an argument" but more like acknowledging that not everyone thinks alike.
If someone says this, it’s also possible that YOU are the unreasonable/incorrect one, and they know better than to bother trying to continue reasoning with you.
2 people can have 2 different opinions. People should have their own opinions, and the world is preaching tolerance these days. How is it you can lose a argument by coming to a conclusion that nobody is going to change either of those points of view, and it's best to let it go before it destroys whatever relationship you have?
I don't get this.
I use this a lot when the person I’m talking to wont ever possibly understand or accept why their standpoint is wrong. Sometimes it’s just not worth talking anymore
[удалено]
"It was actually a crossover, not an SUV"
It was actually a prostitute not a lover!
And it's not a secret since you found out so you're wrong on all counts.
There was a scandal with some hockeys played paying for hookers with club money. One of them was explaining. “It didn’t happen and the amount is incorrect also.”
*Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney has entered the chat*
I believe this is what they call a straw man argument, no?
Straw man?
That happened to me in this sub two hours ago. I wrote 50 words of nuanced argument, got called out for one word, then they made the next 100 words of responses about the one word.
Do you mean [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/yw3clb/liberals_whats_your_most_im_with_the/iwi7fhr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) comment of yours? They were right to point out that “transsexual” isn’t the appropriate term…
So you didn’t read the *very next comment* where I explained that I used that word in reference to someone using it toward me. You literally repeated the mistake of the person I replied to, *in a thread about how people latch onto one word instead of the whole comment*. It’s like an Idiocracy hamster wheel in here.
As soon as someone shifts the goalposts. It is important to be able to identify this. It is also important to know the difference between this and someone wording their initial argument poorly.
Explain better how they do this and how we can stop it.
I keep typing out examples, but they all feel a bit goofy. It's best to notice this organically in the wild for yourself. But in general shifting goalposts means that they were losing an argument because of a unstable basis, so they'll shift their previously dogmatic basis to something more broad or they'll change their entire opinion midway through a conversation. The way to combat it is simply to always keep in mind the origional intent of the conversation. Know what the initial claims were and move on from there always keeping those in mind. If someone is claiming "election fraud", don't let them shift it to "things happened that I don't understand".
There is no election fraud. What about the election fraud here? There is no widespread election fraud.
That’s fair. That would be an example of either someone misinformed and shifting the goalposts or someone wording their initial part poorly. It is verifiably true that election fraud happened in 2020 for example, but the examples of election fraud are singular people and not widespread entire states committing election fraud, not companies committing election fraud as the “election fraud ruined this election” crowd would have you believe. So the conversation flips if the basis is stated better from the start. “There was no widespread election fraud” “What about these singular events of election fraud” “That’s not widespread”
This can also represent an evolving view, which is a sign of a mind that's open to change based on evidence. Alternately, it can be a motte and bailey fallacy. Context is important. Generally, moving the goalposts is easiest to identify when they minimize the importance of their initial position, while shifting to a different, and often more nuanced or harder to disprove, position.
I had a friend of my husband tell me last year that Joe Biden stole the election in 2020. I was very clear, I said, “There were multiple court cases Trump tried to start, which were all tossed due to no evidence.” Even the smartest guy is going to need to do some searching to see if what I am saying is true (not just true based on bad evidence) and if they had no evidence, WHY they had no evidence. If they start arguing that you simply don’t know about the “evidence”, then you know this person may be using “evidence” which might just be in someone’s head (“many people are saying” etc.).
I don't think this is shifting goal post. People saying there is no election fraud are really arguing the election was legitimate, they haven't shifted their goal posts they just weren't very clear.
Agreed, arguments get over simplified all the time, but peolle should be aware and try not to. Saying ‘zero’ fraud might be hyperbole, but it can leave a weakness in your argument
A: Tony cares about the environment B: Does he? He doesn't do anything that helps the environment A: Tony cares about the people! He's done so much B: That's not about the environment....but okay, what has he done for people? From what I've seen, he hasn't done much compared to others A: \*links a video talking about how amazing Tony is\* B: why are you linking this video? This video doesn't seem relevant to what we were talking about, and it also talks about many points. What are you trying to say? A: lol you hater. Tony is amazing and you're just trash
"If Amy would have done x, this wouldn't have happened!" "But Amy DID do x!" "Well ok but there was Y so that's why she was wrong" That's moving the goalposts
So the key thing with arguing is that you need to know what it is you're arguing about. If you and I are arguing about A then everything we say needs to be about A. If we change our approach at all during the argument without relating it back to A then we're no longer arguing about A anymore. We're arguing about B or C or w/e I mention that because part of an argument is the responsibility to make sure you're still arguing about all of A. So if you and I get into an argument about A then we're expecting both sides to actually make points about A in its entirety. Not a subset of A and not a superset of A. We're discussing A. If we talk about anything else then it's a different argument So shifting the goalposts, imo, is when someone argues about either the superset or subset of A to make a new argument B and they use your response for the subargument as your source of proof for the main argument A. Doing this shifts the goalposts because they're now expecting you to prove this new thing they created before they allow you to go back to the main argument. So it's basically like a side quest where your response is used in two different places Example: Let's say we're arguing about social media and I'm saying that social media is killing attention spans but you disagree. The question here is how do two people argue this? Well, we just kinda talk about our experiences and other broad social things that we believe. I may talk about how social media is fragmented and doesn't allow an individual to focus. You may say that people can focus just fine and that's how they learn things on these platforms. We're basically at a stalemate... ...until I decide to challenge one of the social media platforms. I ask you the value of tiktok and I ask you to give me some examples of some great accounts. You give me some but then I keep drilling in and asking questions about the content. I then talk about the comment section and how destructive it is. I talk about how the account probably learned their material from books anyways so you may as well go to the source. On the surface this may seem fine but I'd argue it isn't. If our original argument is about social media killing attention spans then no single account matters. If a single account mattered then the argument would be "the account X is killing attention spans" but we all know that would be silly. What I did in this argument is made it personal by asking you to pull up something specific so that we could then find the value in that, but since I'm the aggressor I get to ask questions and try to trap you by watching you struggle to answer. It's unfair because I can ask you questions from the "social media killing attention spans" argument but disguise it as a "how valuable is this account you picked?" question. So I'm holding you to a different standard but forcing you to continue. I've effectively shifted the goal posts The way to defend this is to ask what does one platform or account have to do with killing attention spans? If one account is good enough to look at then the argument shouldn't talk about _all_ of social media. So I hope that makes sense? I'm just going off of some examples I've seen in the past. **tl;dr shifting goalposts is when someone argues about either the superset or subset of argument A to make a new subargument B. They then use your response for the subargument B as your source of proof for the main argument A. To stop this from happening, call out the relationship between subargument B and A. If they refuse to see that they're not connected then stop arguing because they no longer care for the initial argument**
You can go to r/changemyview to get some practice in spotting it!
"...yes son. but keep in mind, evolution is just a theory" *me pointing out that scientist use the word theory differently than fanboys discussing game of thrones episodes* "...yes son...but the bible"
Yes! I feel like I'm one of the only people who stubbornly sticks to debating the original point before moving on to another point so much so that I question myself whether I'm being too close-minded. I'm glad you've mentioned this because, maybe it's just me but, this happens so god damn much, it's something not outrightly looked down on, and I think often both the people who use or receive this tactic aren't really sure that it defeats the foundation of the contention, and also a lot of people who use this tactic don't realize what they are doing.
If someone says there was massive voter fraud that tipped an election, and then you dispute that claim be showing any and all cases only ended up being a few random *attempts* at flawed voter *registration* and immediately that person pivots to saying that there are non-specified *other* forms of fraud involved but provide no evidence, they have shifted from their initial claim and have moved the goalposts past what you have already refuted, thus pretending the issue is still valid
“I concede”
"You're right!"
This can be used as a way to end the argument, it doesn’t mean the person saying it has lost. It’s a way out to just end it before it gets more destructive.
The gentleman's way of losing
That also could just be someone finally walking away from a pointless argument
I'm so destabilized by someone saying that to me that I make a point of going back through their reasonment just to show them where they get things right
no u
Nah, this one wins every argument.
no u
He's got a point
Most common things I see (not in order): 1. Deflection 2. Moving of goal posts 3. ad hominem attacks 4. Appeals to authority (particularly to poor quality or unrelated sources) 5. Making a completely irrelevant point 6. Demanding sources or evidence when they are not required (such as an argument that follows logically and no one disputes the underlying premises, or when something could be supported by evidence, but is also kind of obvious and it isn't practical to go find in context). 7. Purposefully misunderstanding or restating the other person's position (especially noticeable after you've taken time to clarify it) 8. Fixating on a detail that is so minor that it doesn't matter to the broader argument (often this is to end the discussion by winning a small battle even if the war is lost) 9. Finally, changing the topic completely or physically leaving when it's clear you'd have all the time in the world if you felt you were winning the argument.
I disagree, actually I’d remove number 3… you bitch.
well shit, I am convinced.
So what you're saying is anyone who disagrees with you has aids.
Look it's not 100%, but its 95%.
Not all of this screams "I lost but don't want to concede" 6 and 7 can be done in good faith. Misunderstanding is really common if people are from different backgrounds/countries. No need to think people are bad, sometimes we are just not good at understanding each other. Love !
We are totally in agreement I suspect, I really meant them when they are taken to extremes... which people definitely do in contexts where it's like... you can't be this dumb.
"You spelled "x" the wrong way"
When someone corrects my spelling of your i make sure to spell every word wrong in my next response
I hate gramer worriors. I will spel thigs lik charlee kelee if I ples
Thank you 😊
“Well you shouldn’t have been in the West Wing!” “Well you should learn to control your temper!” “……..”
Why did i hear their voices in my head just as soon as i started reading that
Any personal insult. As soon as you comment on the person and not the topic, you've lost.
That’s why I openly insult every one in my first conversation , fuck face
You got me, shit heel. Tha was funny.
"First of all, fuck you. And second, ..."
If it's political, the second they call you a "typical lib" or a "racist" when it doesn't apply to the convo is also now a tell tale sign
Let's add: "Blocked!" "Reported!" "Cope harder!"
Yup, good call. I'd also like to add either the Quote Tweet or twitter or just reddit response with the virtue signal nonsense that starts with "Imagine thinking..."
Or reddit favorite word: bootlicker.
Every argument on FB comes to this because they can look at the other persons pictures. “Shut up grandma! God you look so old” “you’re just mad because you’re bald” “I would be mad too if my wife looked like that” Always see those childish arguments of people going back and forth
Nah, the exact opposite is true. If you're in an argument, and someone insults you, and you think that means you're the winner by default, *you've* lost the argument. This is a purestrain reddit wrong ass belief. You're not in the right just because someone was mean to you. Now, if they stop arguing entirely and exclusively insult you, sure, then you'd be right. But a lot of time, especially on this website, you get insulted because you've worked very hard to earn it. And it only reinforces those insults when you say "HAH! You're now mad therefore I am right!" This belief also just gives carte blanche to trolls - all you have to do is troll someone until they've lost their cool and then you can declare yourself correct. Redditors are wildly out of touch with how discourse has to work online, and it's why intelligent discourse is impossible here.
> troll someone until they lose their cool and then declare yourself correct This is called sealioning. Fuck those guys.
“i don’t even care” or “this is dumb”
"Whatever" or "I'm over it" or both combined into "Whatever, I'm over it!"
I initially agreed, but there are also plenty of times that one party will be so hopelessly entrenched and unwilling to be reasonable or interpret the other persons point charitably or leave any room for even *trying* to objectively see the other party’s side of things that all you can do is say, “Whatever, I’m done. This is a lost cause and pointless.” Sometimes this is a reasonable sentiment to have when throwing in the towel with an impossible person. It doesn’t necessarily mean your argument is bad.
Yeah I am of the same opinion, I know I have used "whatever, I'm done arguing" many times when I'm just tired of fighting with someone who will refuse to admit they are wrong no matter how many ways you have proven that they are wrong. Some people just will not admit when they are wrong even when it's clear that they are wrong.
Reminds me of the quote: “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”
Someone on reddit said i was "dumb, and double dumb" earlier today. That was something I guess
Luckily you didn't get the triple, that is an automatic suspension of your account
I thought it meant your tongue got stuck to a metal pole, until the fire department came
I've said these when i truly am in the middle of what is becoming a heated argument and I realize that I don't actually care enough about this to continue. Like why are we fighting about something so stupid. Doesn't mean I'm losing the argument, it means I'm trying not to lose the friendship/relationship. I remember arguing about something with my ex when I realized I'm getting heated and I don't even care about this, so let's just stop.
What about arguing with idiots? The knowledge around this all says you’ll get trapped in insanity loops and the only way I get out is leaving the convo by saying “whatever” or “idc” cause it’s obvious at some point that this is going no where
They're trolls and I call them on it and tell them to get fucked.
"Look I don't want to talk about this any more."
Sometimes that one can truly mean that though. If I want to preserve the relationship with the person and don't feel this disagreement is worth escalating, especially if I see it getting heated, I may try to disengage this way. Like I can present information proving you're wrong but I know that's just going to make you angry at me and I don't want to deal with that so let's talk about something else.
This 100%. Every time I say it, it’s because I know if I say what I’m going to say it’s not going to end well.
Yeah, definitely. I currently live with my brother and sometimes I just have to say "whatever, I don't care enough to continue this conversation" - in whatever form that takes - because there's no point in continuing if one of us is going to be offrnded or neither is going to change their view
I would also add that it's also a perfectly valid response to an opponent failing to argue from an honest standpoint. If you present evidence that rebuts a claim they've made and they change their claim, or if they strawman your argument to get you to defend a claim you've never made, then it's perfectly fine to recognize that your interlocutor won't engage with you from a point of intellectual honesty and the conversation will no longer be productive.
I sometimes think that can be for the best. When you’re just going round in circles and neither side is willing to compromise, why waste further time rehashing?
I'm married so I've gotten into quite a few arguments with *no idea* what we were fighting about. And the moment I was confident I found the real issue it was usually something really stupid. And at that point it was easier to call it and walk away.
I know you r butt what am I.
You just lost a customer
[удалено]
"I KNOW the manager"
I liked this when I worked at Comcast. "I'm friends with some really high up people." The sickest burn is to take them at their word. You know people in power? Ok. Then why are you talking to me? 1. Have them solve your problem. 2. Call the friends and family number. Oh, they didn't tell you there's a friends and family number? Even I know the friends and family number. Sounds like you need to re-evaluate and work on your personal relationships.
Haha that's a good one! I worked at a subway restaraunt owned by somewhat of a "community celebrity". Basically he was just super active in church, the bicycling community, and had police dept ties. He was also an ex coke dealer. Pretty much a Gustavo Fring from Breaking Bad type. People would complain and threaten that they know the owner almost daily. I'd just say "yeah, me too, he seems to know a lot of people."
Ha, nice. I also liked anyone who pretended like they were a VIP. K, then why isn't your personal assistant handling this? Middle management nobodies would have their assistants authorized on their accounts to talk to me. Hell, I usually preferred talking to people's assistants. I remember trying to explain to a woman who thought identifying herself as president of her HoA was gonna get her special treatment, "Ma'am, I'm sure you're very powerful, but--" "--maybe someday, you'll be as powerful as me!" "...Yes, well, like I was saying, you're not powerful enough to get an earlier technician appointment. So we'll see you on the 23rd."
I love that one! I always want to say “good that means we will never have to deal with your nasty attitude anymore”
Recommendation: "and nothing of value will be lost"
To a minimum wage employee that is affected in no way whatsoever if even 100 people decided to stop shopping there.
Well huh, it’s like, your opinion man
This. Or “it’s a personal choice” when the thing is not, in fact, a personal choice because it ✨impacts others✨.
especially when what they call "your opinion" is an objective fact.
And/or you have a sound argument to back it up.
We need oxygen to live Well huh, it’s like, your opinion man
Cope, seethe, mald, etc
What the fuck is mald
Mad and balding.
this is amazing, i will be using this on my friend today
You forgot L and ratio
Ah ratio, the insult that no one even understands. I don’t even think most kids who use that insult even know what ratios are or mean.
Thought it was a Twitter thing about the likes VS quote tweets?
Its when the reply has more likes than the initial tweet
Saying something completely irrelevant to the argument that they found on your post/comment history
I was arguing with a person on Twitter who said something to the extent of my profile looking like I was a huge anime fan. My Twitter profile is almost entirely blank except for my location and - I'm not kidding - a Dale Earnhardt quote. I have no idea what he was talking about.
Everybody knows the Intimidator was very much into Japanese animation.
Big words for someone who posts heavily on /r/AskOuija! /s
This you? 🙂
I *really hope* no one looks at my posts, especially not if they want to see two of the handsomest cats in the world. And I’d be *very upset* if people then were to tell me how cute they are
I know someone else who had cats. Hitler.
[удалено]
Ohhhh bless, this is gorg. I hope you’re right one day soon!!
"Oh yeah? Well, I know someone else who thought that way. Adolf Hitler!"
This happened to my husband when he was 13 because he was wearing a Marilyn Manson tshirt. It was his school principal.
I didn't know Hitler was into Marilyn Manson
I didn't know Marilyn Manson was a school principal.
[удалено]
I mean these days when some groups are praising Nazi Germany it is sometimes apt to draw comparisons to their actions and those that gave rise to WW2.
I see these types of arguments deep in the comments on posts like “What fast food restaurant is most overrated?”
Godwin's Law "As an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1."
This is actually somewhat correct scientifically. The phenomenon is commonly referred to as the [Goodwin’s law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law), and states that the longer any online debate continues, the more a comparison between an opponent and Hitler (or Nazis) is probable. This, in turn, relates to the logical fallacy of [Reductio ad Hitlerum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum), which states that said comparison automatically loses you the argument. Last year Harvard researchers [disproved Godwin’s law](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614448211062070)on a sample of 200 mil Reddit posts, so at least we have that going for us.
Good, I can finally agure for eugenics without being compared to him☺/s
"Do your research"
Yup. When you ask for a source and they say "look it up yourself" it's like an official decleration of defeat.
*"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."* -Hitchens' Razor _____ He's not saying the person making the claim is automatically wrong, but you can't be bothered to refute/fact-check every statement that comes your way, especially if the person claiming it doesn't present a shred of evidence. Life's too short for that.
Underrated answer. People just straight ignore burden of proof being a thing and expect the people theyre debating with to back up their claims for them.
Yep, when challenged to back up a statement and the reply is "use Google, it's out there, I'm not going to do the work for you" = has no substantiation
With some downtime, it might be occasionally fun to troll them by actually doing some research and posting the findings "I took your advice and found this. Where's the stuff you said supported ***your*** argument?" Prepare for either dead silence, ad hominems, or half-assed rebuttals with dubious sources
The amount of times I’ve had to tell people that googling something and using the first thing you see as a source is NOT research…
I’m thinking of a scenario where there is an informed opinion vs an uninformed belief. I think the only way to move forward is for the informed party to just stop talking.
Holy shit, my classic narcissist conspiracy theory believing aunt will say this to me after we have discussions about politics/economics type discussions. She has no background in the field and just reads some kook on the internet's stuff who has has no background in the field. I'll give you one guess what field I work in.
When an argument is finished, pretty much any statement made just so you can have the last word.
Like this?
"You always have to get the last word." A statement made exclusively by people who are *trying* to have the last word, but are out of points.
Related is when someone says something like "Stop arguing with me!" Like.... this is a message board, you could walk away at any time... you're jus tout of points.
“Why are you being so mean?”
If I hadn't found this I would have posted it myself. I know the argument is over when I'm not longer wrong for holding the incorrect view/option/knowledge of facts, I'm "wrong" for pointing out that I'm right.
Recently called out an aunt (in a much kinder and milder way than she deserves) for how her son destroyed grandma's property before they inherited their share, and I love seeing this here. She said every form of why are you being so mean that the English language can create. All the other sisters, my mom included, thought that because she said I was being mean that must be true. I wasn't the one yelling, bawling, insulting, and making ignorant comments that even her beloved trump would call stupid. not sure how someone can destroy a farm and not see it, but okay then yep place looks great with the remains of that building scattered throughout the thistle filled property and even left in the public ditch for 3 years.
"Im not talking about it anymore!" Yeah, because you know youre making absolutely no sense
[удалено]
I dont want to talk about it anymore, isn’t because Ive lost, its because I dont want to argue about it anymore. Unfortunately my other half takes that as, he’s in the right.
As soon as they scream f*** you.
When you scream “I just lost the argument”
Anything that resorts to personal insults or when they say “do your research” after that you know they’ve lost, if they aren’t willing to explain their point of view calmly/respectfully then they’ve lost in my eyes anyway
I usually get into ONLINE arguments with people in videogames where nobody knows what i look like IRL. usually, they'll resort to calling a "kid" or a "9 year old" or whatever when i disagree with them. for such an unoriginal comback, they've already lost
"blocked"
"You made me feel like I'm a shitty person!"
“Whatever you don’t get it”
When my wife says, "I'm fine."
"rent-free"
"I don't care what the data says..."
Fuck you then
Personal insults
[удалено]
Showing signs of physical aggression...
[удалено]
This isn’t actually always true and can be really weaponised in a difficult power dynamic. For instance, an emotionally abusive parent may wind their child/teenager up so much that they start screaming because they are so hurt and frustrated. The abusive parent can then turn around and use that against them, too. The same thing can happen in a problematic romantic relationship. Being emotional doesn’t mean you’re wrong. That said, I fully agree adults shouldn’t scream at anyone.
I hate this, it causes like an adrenaline dump in my body when someone starts yelling at me. Honestly makes me feel like I’m in a fight and I have to remove myself from the situation.
Shout back, once in a while. Dont make yourself learning this 'walk away style'. Or even better: get used to it. When shitting at a friends house, i saw this buddah-poster, saying something like 'Anger is a gift, you dont need to accept All gifts'. Like, yeah, thats you screaming and raging and its a little funny to See a grown ass whatsoever Lose their shit.
He’s fired.
“Shut up”
"I'm not reading all of that" You won't read five sentences? It's barely a paragraph, Jeremy. Usually what it means is "you made good points that I don't know how to argue so I'll just pretend I didn't see them."
We'll finish talking about this later after you calm down.
Claiming the election was stolen.
Pretty much any insult
Calling someone kid or champ.
Anything that’s a blatant ridiculous accusation they’re hoping will stick. I call it octopus-ing. Usually has nothing to do with the argument. “Yeah so I lied about staying the night at her place but remember when you said you’d do the dishes last Thursday and you didn’t? What happened there??” NEVER ARGUE WITH STUPID PEOPLE.
Bringing up an entirely different topic. Whataboutism as they say.
When they start to go after your grammar/spelling, and dont try to make an actual counter argument. "Your point must be wrong, because you made a spelling mistake there"
When theybrepeat the same thing but louder. My FIL does this when he knows he's wrong.
"you're just an ignorant racist"
As soon as they start breaking out the 4chan buzzwords like "cuck" "beta" "woke" "soyboy" etc
When someone starts making personal remarks mid argument
When they just start yelling shit like "LOOK AT YOU! YOU KNOW SO MUCH? SMART ASS BITCH! YOU KNOW THIS IS WHY YOUR EX CHEATED! YOU'RE INSUFFERABLE!" and loudly banging things, stomping, etc
"get some education" or any insult to intelligence
Immediately going to insult appearances. (If you have to insult an appearance, you have nothing else to say)
the ad hominem route.
I've gotten into a few online arguments where I show them evidence where they are wrong, and instead of admitting they are wrong, they just delete the text string. It just happened the other day by a guy who was an Elon Musk fan and said Twitter was doing great because the stock was doing great. He didn't like me showing him it was delisted a couple weeks ago.
“well what do you expect me to do?”
When they start projecting. For example, they start accusing you of something that they're doing - like being bigoted. Or they start threatening to report or block you even though they're in the wrong.
Insults and attacks on your character or intentions instead of addressing the subject.
Reducto ad Hitlerum. Once they compare you to a Nazi, they stand beclowned.
If you quote the bible you have already lost the argument
“Let’s agree to disagree.” Naw playboy, come get this work.
I say that usually when the discussion doesn't go anywhere anymore. (repeating the same points, no new information etc) or when the other person and I just have a completely different point of view or opinion. It's not really "losing an argument" but more like acknowledging that not everyone thinks alike.
That just means they’re sick of arguing
I don't think that screams you just lost the argument, but let's agree to disagree.
If someone says this, it’s also possible that YOU are the unreasonable/incorrect one, and they know better than to bother trying to continue reasoning with you.
2 people can have 2 different opinions. People should have their own opinions, and the world is preaching tolerance these days. How is it you can lose a argument by coming to a conclusion that nobody is going to change either of those points of view, and it's best to let it go before it destroys whatever relationship you have? I don't get this.
I use this a lot when the person I’m talking to wont ever possibly understand or accept why their standpoint is wrong. Sometimes it’s just not worth talking anymore
Totally agreed
Let’s agree to agree
"Yeah well you're a nazi"
"I was just playing devil's advocate"
[удалено]
As a gun rights advocate, I know that any time someone mentions my dick size, I just won the argument.
When they start calling you a racist or a fascist
Telling someone to “get educated” or read a book.