Arguing on GT
 

Here is a graphic about arguing on the Internets Tubes

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eement.svg.png


Before responding to someone, we need to consider where in this pyramid our response falls into. :yep:

I personally think that Refutation and Counterargument should be reversed. But in any case we should strive to be in the top three.

If someone posts in the bottom four, we don't have to respond. How else will they learn? :03:

Guilty of responding to tone rather than argument.

More satisfying that way

Sweet, says nothing about changing the subject.:D

Derailment here we come.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17os...g/original.jpg

edit:
I say Meh, because I think there are very few people here capable of having an open discussion. Most of us state our firm opinions, then go on to support those opinions ad nauseum, going back and forth, back and forth like a verbal game of ping pong. I do not claim exception.

You're an ass hat!

Oh wait I got that backwards. Sorry.:oops:

Refuting the Central Point: Sometimes not possible. Often it's difficult to tell the difference between argument and disagreement. Argument and refutations assumes there is a point. Learning to tell a point from an opinion is vital, but most of us forget from time to time, and some never learn the difference.

Refutation: Always something to strive for, but again is difficult when one party or the other assumes that his/her opinion is fact. Sometimes there are no facts.

Counterargument: Never say anything you can't back up with facts. If you have to, admit it's only your opinion.

Contradiction: Even worse, sometimes Contradiction doesn't state the opposing case at all. Merely saying "No, you're wrong" helps no one.

Responding to Tone: Good advice, but sometimes the tone needs responding to. I'm talking about those times when the opposing party uses tone to try to make a point. At those times the tone needs not to be responded to, but directly addressed for its own sake.

Ad Hominem: That's a good one, and a tough one at the same time. Even and idiot can be right, and even a genius can be wrong. Ad Hominem also includes attacking the opponent's sources. If you can prove the source is wrong with a source of your own, great, but just because the source is flawed it doesn't mean the point is.

Name-Calling: If you can't prove your point, throw something. A tantrum is less abusive than a brick, but it's still an admission of defeat.

Why is it a triangle? Should be a pie chart.

I think it's organized according to what the author considered order of importance.

Once again i refer to:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

As long as it is a cherry pie...
or was it peach

or banana cream?

For the purposes of GT, it probably should be a pie chart. By my evaluation (for whatever that's worth), it all boils down to difference of opinion, and how those differences are continually expressed. It never really changes.

I love you man...:/\\k::subsim:
(note, in a purely platonic sense, not carnal!)

I can't believe no one has posted this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

in for the win.:subsim:

I withdraw. :dead: