Some Arguments that Annoy Me

I love to debate. It's good fun, especially with a knowledgeable and clever opponent. Rarely, however, do I encounter a knowledgeable and clever adversary. Much of the time, my knowledgeable foes are not clever, or my clever antagonists are not knowledgeable. Too often, my challenger is neither (as is usually the case with democrats--and if you take that to be a shot in favor of republicans, then you haven't been reading much of this blog).

The following list is of the usual responses when my less than able sparring partners realize that they have been backed into a corner.

1.) "Who's to say?" What I find objectionable about this less than witty retort is that it's really a red herring. The issue is not who's saying what; it's what's being said that matters. Whenever someone comes back from one of your major points with this one, you should know that you've got him or her on the ropes.

2.) "You think what you want, and I'll think what I want." At this point, your opponent has basically surrendered and is asking for generous terms. Now is the time to be General Grant. Offer no terms except for unconditional surrender, and remind him or her that you propose to move upon his or her works immediately (read some narrative history on the engagement at Fort Donelson in 1862 if you don't get this one). Once pressed further, your opponent is likely to suggest that it isn't worth arguing anymore because you are too stubborn to see his or her point. Again, this is a point to you, for you've now forced your adversary into relying upon ad hominem rebuttals. What they really mean to say (but won't, for pride stands in the way) is, "I cannot logically reject your argument, so I am backing off in an orderly fashion before this argument turns into a rout.

3. "You see things in black and white, but the world is painted in shades of gray." This argument starts off first with an absurd metaphor. Of course the world isn't painted in black and white, but it isn't painted in gray either. In fact, the world isn't painted at all. What your opponent is really saying here is something akin to "There are no absolutes" or "There is no such thing as right or wrong," or "Everything is relative." There are some major logical problems with this position.
First of all, you can't say that there are no absolutes. It's an autophagic argument (i.e. it destroys itself), for to assert that there are no absolutes is to make an absolute statement.
Second, you can't say that there is no such thing as right or wrong and be right about it, for if you're right, then the statement is false (since nothing is right).
Third, you can't say that everything is relative. If everything is relative, then the assertion that everything is relative is merely relative. This means, in fact, that there are absolutes. Therefore, everything is not relative. Questions of good and evil, elements of logic and moral principles cannot be relative. Of course, some things are relative: I like pizzas with lots of cheese, pepperoni, sausage, onions, green peppers, black olives, and mushrooms. My wife, on the other hand, prefers cheese and pepperoni. That's a relative issue because it's really about little more than taste preferences. It's a relative issue to argue if green peppers taste good. Whether or not green peppers have vitamins is not a relative issue. Even if you think that green peppers taste like elephant feces (by the way, how do you know what pachyderm poop tastes like?), you cannot say that green peppers don't have vitamins. Something like whether or not abortion should be legal is not relative. You might wish that abortion was OK, but that doesn't make it so.

Also, your opponent, if he or she relies upon tricks instead of reason, may resort to other techniques. For one, they may appeal to popularity (ad populum): well Michigan voters have spoken, and gay couples should not be allowed to marry or enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. Does this mean that an anti-Semitic majority that wishes to harm Jews is right? As far as I can observe, a majority proves only the ignorance or maliciousness of the masses. Seriously, if marriage is a religious act, then the law (as brought down by the state) ought to have none of it.

Then again, your enemy may wish to make you tremble in your boots. These are the kind who constantly tell you how crucial the issue of global warming is. If you for one second think, "Hey, hasn't the globe been warming naturally for tens of thousands of years since the last Ice Age?" then these people will thwart you by warnings that you and your children and your grand children and your great-grandchildren etc. will die. Since your really not dumb enough to fall into this trap, they'll make you feel sorry for penguins and polar bears (seriously, there's a conspiracy to make you feel bad for arctic and antarctic wildlife because deep inside you know that their predictions of what will happen to people is a load of BS). The fact that they resort to making you (and especially your children) simply sympathize with arctic/antarctic wildlife should be enough to make you see through their weak arguments.

There are more, but it's late, and I'm tired.