Internet debate pet peeves

What are some things that people do during internet debates that just irk the **** out of you?

My top 3 are:

1. When people respond with "They're entitled to their opinion".

Why is it annoying?

Because nobody ever says that their right to an opinion should be removed, just that they think it's a bad opinion because of a, b and c. It comes across as a phrase that people use when they want to defend someone's viewpoint but they can't think of any logical reason to defend it, so they just default to "they're entitled to their opinion." Basically, people that use this phrase that are stating the obvious and are adding nothing to the debate.

Another reason the phrase doesn't make sense is because the people who are trashing one's opinion are entitled their opinion that the other person's opinion sucks for whatever reason. :shock:

2. Really long videos as evidence.

Why is it annoying?

The posters of said video will pretend that their opponent is in denial of their evidence simply because they don't have time to watch a 2 hour long video. What in the world happened to summing up a video's best points? Absolutely nobody is going to spend hours watching a video just for the sake of some stupid online debate that everybody will forget once the thread dies anyway.

3. People that don't actually debate, but just sit on the sidelines lecturing people on their behavior in the thread or screaming about bias, usually in a very biased way (that to say they only call out the people they disagree with).

Why is it annoying?

Put simply, these people don't add anything to the thread and come off rather obnoxious despite being on a mission to tell off people they deem to be acting obnoxiously towards something they hold dear. Now that wouldn't be all that annoying if these folks actually put forth arguments, but they never do. Furthermore, screaming about biased people is kind of annoying simply because the only unbiased people are dead or babies.

Anyway, what are your internet debate pet peeves?

Pet peeves are subjective. cybrcatter

Yours might be, but mine are science.

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]Pet peeves are subjective. GreySeal9

Yours might be, but mine are science.

Dead people aren't unbiased. Somehow they seem to vote Democrat.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]Pet peeves are subjective. ColonelWilks

Yours might be, but mine are science.

[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Yours might be, but mine are science.

carrot-cake

Dead people aren't unbiased. Somehow they seem to vote Democrat.

peaceful_anger

:lol:

Don't know if those rumors that Democrats get dead votes is true, but I gotta hand it to you, that's pretty clever.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

Dead people aren't unbiased. Somehow they seem to vote Democrat.

GreySeal9

:lol:

Don't know if those rumors that Democrats get dead votes is true, but I gotta hand it to you, that's pretty clever.

Wow gotta agree with the same ones TC especially the, "Its your opinion" crap. That happens soooo much in music debates its a joke.

My biggest peeve is honestly just dedicated to many who post on OT and thats the tendency to write incredible vague responses then try to justify their response with off tagint reasons that hardly root to the debate at hand. It gets even more annoying when they add the,"...if you read my post....you would...see that.." or the "But...thats not the ...point..." As if theya re trying to create this calm and cool pause, its annoying! :evil: (goes off crying)

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

Dead people aren't unbiased. Somehow they seem to vote Democrat.

peaceful_anger

:lol:

Don't know if those rumors that Democrats get dead votes is true, but I gotta hand it to you, that's pretty clever.

In defense of "in my opinion," I tend to use it in order to differentiate statements that I consider to be facts against those which I beforehand implicitly admit that there is a greater possibility in which they could be wrong.

When the TC or debater just abandons the thread when they know they lost. Just acknowledge that you were wrong.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

:lol:

Don't know if those rumors that Democrats get dead votes is true, but I gotta hand it to you, that's pretty clever.

ColonelWilks

1: The opinion card: It's the politically correct eras excuse to say something exceptionally stupid. I already know we're arguing something entirely subjective. But there is definitely something that is called an informed opinion or a well reasoned one. A moronic statement with nothing reasonable backing it isn't an opinion. It's being stupid. It goes without saying if you're arguing quality of anything. A lot of it is opinion. Doesn't mean there is no such thing as a wrong one. You can totally have the wrong opinion. I call shens.

2: Arguing the person not the topic: This usually annoys me. Why are you even arguing the habits of the person? just stick to the topic twit. Those are the only 2 that legit annoy me.

Edit: Not necessarily just for debates, but I hate this way of posting. When someone puts up a long-winded post, and then highlights and bolds(like this right here) one specific part of it. As if they are stressing the point. I ****ing hate that.

[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="peaceful_anger"] Oh..it's true alright. As long as there are dead people, the Dems will have a huge list of voters. :P

peaceful_anger

1: The opinion card: It's the politically correct eras excuse to say something exceptionally stupid. I already know we're arguing something entirely subjective. But there is definitely something that is called an informed opinion or a well reasoned one. A moronic statement with nothing reasonable backing it isn't an opinion. It's being stupid. It goes without saying if you're arguing quality of anything. A lot of it is opinion. Doesn't mean there is no such thing as a wrong one. You can totally have the wrong opinion. I call shens.

2: Arguing the person not the topic: This usually annoys me. Why are you even arguing the habits of the person? just stick to the topic twit. Those are the only 2 that legit annoy me.

Edit: Not necessarily just for debates, but I hate this way of posting. When someone puts up a long-winded post, and then highlights and bolds(like this right here) one specific part of it. As if they are stressing the point. I ****ing hate that.

jg4xchamp

Why must you hurt the ones you love? :?

When people state their opinion, but don't back it up with hard, factual evidence.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

1: The opinion card: It's the politically correct eras excuse to say something exceptionally stupid. I already know we're arguing something entirely subjective. But there is definitely something that is called an informed opinion or a well reasoned one. A moronic statement with nothing reasonable backing it isn't an opinion. It's being stupid. It goes without saying if you're arguing quality of anything. A lot of it is opinion. Doesn't mean there is no such thing as a wrong one. You can totally have the wrong opinion. I call shens.

2: Arguing the person not the topic: This usually annoys me. Why are you even arguing the habits of the person? just stick to the topic twit. Those are the only 2 that legit annoy me.

Edit: Not necessarily just for debates, but I hate this way of posting. When someone puts up a long-winded post, and then highlights and bolds(like this right here) one specific part of it. As if they are stressing the point. I ****ing hate that.

GreySeal9

Why must you hurt the ones you love? :?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

1: The opinion card: It's the politically correct eras excuse to say something exceptionally stupid. I already know we're arguing something entirely subjective. But there is definitely something that is called an informed opinion or a well reasoned one. A moronic statement with nothing reasonable backing it isn't an opinion. It's being stupid. It goes without saying if you're arguing quality of anything. A lot of it is opinion. Doesn't mean there is no such thing as a wrong one. You can totally have the wrong opinion. I call shens.

2: Arguing the person not the topic: This usually annoys me. Why are you even arguing the habits of the person? just stick to the topic twit. Those are the only 2 that legit annoy me.

Edit: Not necessarily just for debates, but I hate this way of posting. When someone puts up a long-winded post, and then highlights and bolds(like this right here) one specific part of it. As if they are stressing the point. I ****ing hate that.

jg4xchamp

Why must you hurt the ones you love? :?

I really hate to explain jokes, but:

You railed on something I did in my OP (bolding), so I replied with the above post.

People who use logical fallacies all the time are easy to argue against, so that doesn't really bother me. The "It's my opinion" thing is a little annoying, but easily countered. It's funny when you do post a rebuttal to that statement; it's like some people weren't expecting it, like no one ever told them "It's my opinion" isn't the trump card of all arguments.

Things that kinda annoy me...

1. Go research my claim for me. I've been told on this forum: "Google it," "Google is your friend," and "Go use Google so you can be educated like me." (No, I am not making that last one up.) There are a fair number of people on this forum who think the correct response to "Can you source that?" is "Go look it up yourself."
2. People who expect to be taken seriously after posting nonsense. The other day, I witnessed an exchange where one person caught another in an obvious logical fallacy. Instead of conceding the point, the person in error posted something to the effect, "Haha, I can say whatever I want on the Internet." Okay fine, but this person shouldn't expect to be taken seriously after that. If you're just here to goof off, fine, but don't pretend to engage in actual debate and then turn into a buffoon when you lose.
3. People who talk out their ass. "Talking out your ass" is when you pretend to have knowledge in a certain area. Discussions in OT often involve specialized fields: Law, biology, military science, et cetera. While anyone can discuss the general philosophical ramifications of anything, people go way, way further, describing highly specific scenarios that they have absolutely no basis for. Of the three areas I listed there, I have an extensive erudition in one of them. The absurd crap that people come up with in my area of expertise suggests to me that there are lot of blowhards in every thread, who like to argue specifics in subjects they know nothing about. For f***'s sake, it's okay to say "I don't know.".

Probably the most annoying for me is people who, when they're losing a debate, will linger on and try to "get" you on the most trivial semantics in the world, arguing (for example) that something they said was technically correct if you just read what they wrote veeery carefully. Also, people who pull out philosophy to blatantly cover themselves. If you need to suppose that this world is the Matrix and that nothing actually exists in order to support your position, it might just be time to reconsider that position.

When the internet gets turned off for a whole country (Egypt)

http://www.news.com.au/technology/censoring-some-sites-is-one-thing-but-how-has-egypt-unplugged-the-internet-entirely/story-e6frfro0-1225996353223

EGYPT has apparently done what many technologists thought was unthinkable for any country with a major internet economy: It unplugged itself entirely

"Talking out your ass" is when you pretend to have knowledge in a certain area. Discussions in OT often involve specialized fields: Law, biology, military science, et cetera. While anyone can discuss the general philosophical ramifications of anything, people go way, way further, describing highly specific scenarios that they have absolutely no basis for. Of the three areas I listed there, I have an extensive erudition in one of them. The absurd crap that people come up with in my area of expertise suggests to me that there are lot of blowhards in every thread, who like to argue specifics in subjects they know nothing about. For f***'s sake, it's okay to say "I don't know.".

Palantas

But what if there was a man holding a building full of hostages, and he demanded to watch someone pretend to have qualifications to talk about something and said that he would kill all the hostages otherwise, and if you knew there was no other way to save the hostages, then what? :o

When someone seeks to argue instead of learning.

But what if there was a man holding a building full of hostages, and he demanded to watch someone pretend to have qualifications to talk about something and said that he would kill all the hostages otherwise, and if you knew there was no other way to save the hostages, then what? :o

GabuEx

In that case, we'd send in Samuel L. Jackson, and he'd pretend to talk out his ass and be a bulls***ter. Then he'd give a countdown through a window for a sniper to disable the bad guy, while entertaining the hostage-taker with all sorts of nonsense. *Bang!* the police sniper would take out the bad guy, but somehow not kill him. Then as Jackson puts cuffs on him while SWAT busts in, he'd say, "Guess what, scumbag? I actually don't know."

People who make statements that get refuted and then disappear from the debate.

People who then attack the other person...not the points.

People who whine about the debate turning into a semantics debate without realising that sometimes certain issues inevitably have aspects that only semantics can address.

So, basically, people who say "this is semantics!" as a cop-out because they cant find a decent rebuttal.

People who whine about the debate turning into a semantics debate without realising that sometimes certain issues inevitably have aspects that only semantics can address.

So, basically, people who say "this is semantics!" as a cop-out because they cant find a decent rebuttal.

Teenaged

people deserve to be called out on their behavior, if they don't back up argument with facts, see youtube, i mean y take things so personal and start flaming,

some harmless little kid (literally), post a little harmless vid (literally), some racist, sexist, all kinds a phobe comments pop up(literally). Almost makes me to conclude there are a lot of miserable people hiding behind PCs.

People who use logical fallacies all the time are easy to argue against, so that doesn't really bother me. The "It's my opinion" thing is a little annoying, but easily countered. It's funny when you do post a rebuttal to that statement; it's like some people weren't expecting it, like no one ever told them "It's my opinion" isn't the trump card of all arguments.

Things that kinda annoy me...

1. Go research my claim for me. I've been told on this forum: "Google it," "Google is your friend," and "Go use Google so you can be educated like me." (No, I am not making that last one up.) There are a fair number of people on this forum who think the correct response to "Can you source that?" is "Go look it up yourself."
2. People who expect to be taken seriously after posting nonsense. The other day, I witnessed an exchange where one person caught another in an obvious logical fallacy. Instead of conceding the point, the person in error posted something to the effect, "Haha, I can say whatever I want on the Internet." Okay fine, but this person shouldn't expect to be taken seriously after that. If you're just here to goof off, fine, but don't pretend to engage in actual debate and then turn into a buffoon when you lose.
3. People who talk out their ass. "Talking out your ass" is when you pretend to have knowledge in a certain area. Discussions in OT often involve specialized fields: Law, biology, military science, et cetera. While anyone can discuss the general philosophical ramifications of anything, people go way, way further, describing highly specific scenarios that they have absolutely no basis for. Of the three areas I listed there, I have an extensive erudition in one of them. The absurd crap that people come up with in my area of expertise suggests to me that there are lot of blowhards in every thread, who like to argue specifics in subjects they know nothing about. For f***'s sake, it's okay to say "I don't know.".

Palantas

I really really dislike it when points made have already been disproven and the person continues on with the same exact argument or finds an internet link down the road and reposts the same exact argument. The only proof is in the science. The science is shared through peer reviewed articles. The end. Then you hav people posting some obscure website with someones mistaken opinion and the poster says "There! Proof!"