[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
To win an argument: 'calm down',...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /qa/ - Question & Answer

Thread replies: 41
Thread images: 5
To win an argument: 'calm down', 'troll', 'hater', 'you obviously', 'LOL', 'don't care', 'I'm done', 'actually this is funny', 'not wasting my time', 'butthurt'
>>
Calm down, butthurt hater troll. You obviously don't care. Actually, this is funny, LOL. I'm done. Not wasting my time.
>>
You forgot the "lel u have never had sex therefore you're wrong" argument.
>>
>>441374
Don't forget "cuck".
>>
>>441374
Do you keep score of how many arguments you win and lose? Because nobody else keeps score either. Why do you give a shit who wins and who loses the argument, Anon?
>>
>>441522
It's annoying when the person you're arguing with decides to be a stubborn prick.
>>
>>441525
For what reason do you find that annoying? Do you have some expectation of civility here on 4chan that they're violating when they become a stubborn prick?
>>
>>441528
I just find it childish and Youtube comment like. I don't really expect people to be civil, I don't mind if people call me fag or nigger or whatever but just ignoring me and saying "hahaah butthurt cuck triggered did i strike a nerve" pisses me off
>>
>>441530
Sounds like you're giving them what they want by letting your nerves be struck. You're immune to one form of rudeness, in that "fag" and "nigger" don't bother you, but then other forms of namecalling do. You've allowed your mental toughness develop lazily and selectively. Please consider treating 4chan more like a game, and try to avoid arguing about anything you actually care about. Ask yourself why you argue on the internet in the first place. Are you trying to increase your social standing? Are you trying to make future interactions with a person go more smoothly? Or are you just going through the motions because your brain pumps primate chemicals at you and tells you to be a social mammal in a locale that doesn't warrant it at all? Rise up.

I am NOT defending the people you're complaining about. They're jackasses. It is, however, your responsibility to keep your mind strong and defended. If somebody can deride you with a simple repetitive phrase that takes less than ten seconds to type, you've grown weak. Don't be a weakling.
>>
>>441533
You got a point there. I guess the reason I argue with people is to change minds amid all the misinformation thrown around. But you're right, it is pretty pointless arguing on the Internet, especially on an anonymous website. Thanks, I really need to not let people get to me.
>>
>>441535
If you really want to get depressed, you should google and read up on a psychological phenomenon known as "The Backfire Effect". It's peer reviewed, tested, and understood. Simply put, if you present evidence that goes against a deeply held notion that is important to the worldview of the person receiving the information, their mind goes into "DEFENSE MODE" and ignores it, and actually believes the thing you're trying to convince them to stop thinking, even harder. Arguing on the internet becomes not only pointless, but the opposite of pointless. Giving somebody PROOF that their position is ill conceived and their reasons for believing the thing they believe aren't true makes them believe the wrong thing even more. Arguing "effectively" has the opposite effect that you want.

There's your homework. Good luck, Anon.
>>
>>441536
calm down
>>
>>441536
Wow, looks like there really is no point in arguing. Never really paid attention to The Backfire Effect, but now that you mention it I can think of many times where I've seen it. Thanks again.
>>
>>441541
Well, actually, there is a reason to argue. The person you're directly arguing with isn't the target. The people listening to the argument and lurking the thread are.

Rather than imagining a 4chan thread like a bunch of people sitting around a table discussing something over lunch, imagine it like those people at that table, but with a huge crowd of onlookers looking at the thread. According to moot, back in the day (which I don't want to go find but it goes in line with the numbers that the Pareto Principal implies, so I just believe them), about 80% of 4chan is just lurkers who rarely, if ever, post. They're watching. If they're on the fence about any issues, and they read something that doesn't go against any of their preconceived notions, they're gonna internalize and believe that thing unless there's an immediate takedown of that position.

And here's where it gets sad. 'calm down', 'troll', 'hater', 'you obviously', 'LOL', 'don't care', 'I'm done', 'actually this is funny', 'not wasting my time', 'butthurt' work better than actually refuting them. It ridicules and derides them, and it doesn't tax the onlooker's already strained patience. Most lurkers on 4chan are between the ages of 15 and 21, afterall. They haven't really had time to train themselves to handle long unbroken walls of text like you have.

Or, you know, you could always
>try
fisking
>every
sentence
>of
their
>post
and
>attacking
each
>point
individually
>as if there wasn't an overall synthesized idea underpinning it all.

Regrettably, fisking is a very successful way to change minds. I really wish it weren't because it's so easy and stupid, but it is. I want conventional wisdom to be right but it just isn't. Humans are really easy to black box debug and boy oh boy are we buggy.
>>
>>441549
I just wrote "Pareto Principal" instead of principle and missed it when proofreading. God fucking dammit.
>>
>>441541
I have pretty much given up on internet arguments after a certain thing happened to me a few months ago. Not implying I ever gave them credence in the first place, but it was a very bizarre and curious experience.
I was in a thread on /lit/ where someone posted a picture of a bunch of famous historical figures and authors with a caption like 'all these people were pedophiles. Do you still want to kill pedos?'. Looking over the people there I saw not a single one I recognized as such, and several people I was certain weren't (Julius Caesar comes to mind) and assumed it was a bait pic and called it out.
One or two people showed up with the usual 'fuck off, it's actually right' stuff and upon further comments I realized I actually had been wrong. While I hadn't seen it at first, looking over wikipedia blurbs and thinking back to various allegations and events in the lives of the people on the image made me realize pretty much all of them were connected to pedophilia.
Rather than doubling down with more insults or get off on a technicality or something, I tried a new and virtually never used path: I simply admitted I was wrong and apologized.
What was baffling to me was that instead of just ending the conversation there or anything, one person just continued to hound on me. I was a retard, I was brainwashed by society to think it incredulous that any famous person could be a pedo, etc.
I tried to politely explain that I don't give a shit about the 'morality' of it and that I had just genuinely been misinformed, but they doubled down further, ad infinitum.
Basically, the so-called 'Backfire Effect' was happening even though I had ADMITTED that I was in the wrong and stopped arguing the point. With that in mind, I see that trying to have a polite discussion where one side admits their faults if they have been demonstrated is futile, because the other side will just do the same vitriol anyways.
>>
>>441552
Yeah, you violated his preconceived notion that you were a faggot, and when you presented proof that you weren't, he just believed you were a faggot harder.

I kid but also I don't???????????
>>
File: 1390967741052.jpg (231 KB, 1640x1480) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1390967741052.jpg
231 KB, 1640x1480
>>441374
Don't forget, having a smug anime avatar = +25% more effective arguments.
>>
>>441561
a smug /tv/ or /co/ avatar is fine in a pinch
>>
One aspect of arguing on 4chan that never ceases to boil my blood is the difference between "The world sucks, get used to it," and "The world sucks, let's identify how and why, and fix it" and how the first set outnumbers the second set greatly, and accuses the second set of being "I'm a fairy faggot that thinks things are all sunshine and rainbows."
>>
File: Data2.png (45 KB, 159x219) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Data2.png
45 KB, 159x219
>>441565
True, but it's especially good if it has a smug filename as well. Filename unrelated.
>>
>>441374
Better than 'lol go back to 8gag redditor normalfag lurk more hurr'
>>
>>441374
>>441561
>losing an argument? just spam smug animu grill images
>>
It's because you faggots don't know how to or have enough autism to counter troll.
>>
"This whole website is trash but I can't find anywhere that's better"

Maybe because your taste is shit and when people give you suggestions you're just like "Wow I can't believe you seriously suggested that this site is dying" instead of explaining why you don't like that suggestion.
>>
>>441516
virgin detected
>>
>>442008
What's amusing is they use it on people who AREN'T virgins. Frankly the amount of weight some people place on the importance of sex is embarrassing and I can only pity them because they may never realize how much time they're wasting and will die unfulfilled.
>>
>>441374
It took a while for me to realize that when people ask "cite/source" they don't really care about your citations, they just want to be disruptive and get you to waste your time. This becomes much clearer when they dismiss your cites for various trivial reasons (normally related to the place you found them). That's assuming the citations can be easily found via google, and not on papers or books offline.

The only time you can use this against them is when they ask for citations and it's a subject frequently discussed on the board- then they end up getting shouted down for their newness.

But no, neither situation is useful for productive discussion.
>>
>>442193
I fundamentally disagree with the notion of wanting to have a productive discussion on an effervescent transient anonymous image board.
>>
File: 1402774017362.png (117 KB, 270x259) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1402774017362.png
117 KB, 270x259
>implying anybody "wins" arguments on 4chan
>>
>>441521
>>442008
>>442062
You sound like you frequent /r9k/ too much. No offense.
>>
>>442661
butthurt
>>
>>442661
I (first reply) actually do lol
>>
>>442661
Third reply here, what makes you say that? I haven't actively gone to that board in years but I know from my past experiences with /r9k/ that they're some of the worst offenders in terms of sex obsession. Which is why they can't stop talking about how women have wronged them. And from what I've seen, this has only gotten worse.
>>
Here is your reply
>>
>poster subverts the conversation to talk about something else in an argumental manner
>they claim "victory" over something completely detached from what you were talking about
>>
>>442688
get trolled
>>
To win an argument: 'Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world.'

'That's why he passed Obamacare and the stimulus and Dodd-Frank and the deal with Iran. It is a systematic effort to change America. When I'm president of the United States, we are going to re-embrace all the things that made America the greatest nation in the world and we are going to leave our children with what they deserve: the single greatest nation in the history of the world.'
>>
>>442687
>what makes you say that?
The only times I have seen sex/virginity used in an argument is on /b/ or /r9k/. I frequent several boards and have never seen it outside of the two I just mentioned. It's an /r9k/ thing to accuse somebody of virginity or lack of virginity.
>>
>>442719
I think /pol/ and /tv/ do it too. Yes, they're also shit.
>>
>>442639
Why not? The transient nature of the layout raises any worthwhile discussion to even greater value. The feel-good bragging right of holding the attention of a formidable & fickle audience despite odds against you can be a reward in itself. Do you even supply-side scarcity?
Thread replies: 41
Thread images: 5
Thread DB ID: 515824



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.