User blog:Opheuchus/Examples of Bad Arguments

Hello. PET here, and I would like to help you all identify bad arguments. Now, I'm going to be using a example from ZachOWott, so when I do, I'm going to even it up by putting myself in a bad light as well.

That being said, I do not mean to intentionally harm anyone. I simply would like to help you guys identify bad arguments and why. This blog will probably never be complete, so I will be consistently adding new stuff whenever I can.

PigLover
Now, this is a pretty obvious one, and this has been used by PigLover numerous times. Whenever someone makes an argument against PL, he would go ahead and point out their own mistakes, hoping to divert attention away from him.

This was the most memorable in the Pig Lover Admin War where he tried to make me feel like a complete jerk by pointing out my mistakes, which is ridiculous.

But again, bringing up past wars is not my intention. I simply want you guys to be able to identify these bad arguments and hopefully not have you succumb to them.

CarsonYT
This should come up as a no-brainer. Swasimcool said that he had a 97% in English, as a result of his good grammar and writing. This is almost painfully obvious, as you need excellent writing skills to score that high of a grade in English.

However, this sums up what CarsonYT said as a reply, "I don’t believe that: just as a well-organized binder (or locker) is a sign of a well-organized mind, good writing habits reflect excellent learning skills and academic achievement."

This is utter bull-crap. He took Swasimcool's argument, and contorted it in a way in which he could reply with a BS retort like that. To explain what I mean by that, CarsonYT said it as if Swasimcool said that his writing skills are the result of his BINDER being organized. Anyone with half a brain would be able to tell that Swasimcool didn't say the word "binder" (or "locker) ANYWHERE in his initial argument.

ZachOWott
Now, this is not to put shame into Zach, but this is another good example that I feel like would fit into this blog post.

During the Bureaucrat Conflict, Swasimcool replied to one of my arguments, saying that I said that his edits were useless. And then in the page where I shared my perspective on it, I argued back, saying that I did not say that his edits were useless. I even went as far as saying that I didn't even say the word "useless", so I couldn't have said that.

However, ZachOWott retorted, saying that my argument sounded mean. This should give you another idea on how easy it is to reply to an argument by changing the context.

I said that I didn't say his edits were useless, and Zach said that my reply was mean. It does not counter my argument at all. He said it as if I had said that my argument wasn't mean, which I didn't. I did not try to say that my argument wasn't mean. His retort was completely aimless.

To show you what I mean, let me give you a third example. This time, I was the one guilty of this.

Positive Elixir Trade
This is the conversation I had with my father over the summer. This is how I replied to my father's counterargument: "Well, they do have their moments..." I only did this because I knew that I was screwed in this tiny dispute and I really wanted to find a way to retort, so I went with that. It was completely moronic because it did not support my original statement at all.
 * Me: "Hey dad, I think most people hate their jobs."
 * Dad: "Well, have you ever seen someone hate their job? How would you know?"
 * (Me, realizing that I only said that because of gut-feeling)
 * Me: "Well, they do have their moments..."
 * Dad: "Well, that's certainly not the same as them hating their job completely.

Thunderhawk
So, during the Second-Bureaucrat argument on Discord, Thunderhawk said something I will never forget, "We've had two Bureaucrats before, why not now?"

This goes to show how easy it is for people to contort information to their own benefit. He's right, but he's also wrong at the same time. He said it as if there were two ACTIVE Bureaucrats before, which there weren't. Thunderhawk took things out of context to make a plausible sounding argument. However, a smart person will know the circumstances of the issue, and identify what is horribly wrong about it.

Don't get me wrong. Thunderhawk is technically right, but he's contextually wrong. And context is really important and extremely delicate. As seen here, the context can be contorted to give out misleading information. In context, the wiki has never had two Bureaucrats before.