What is Digg?217 Comments
- itsfini, on 05/16/2008, -4/+163“Elephants charge at up to 25mph. Way faster than you can run…”
This completely misses the point that the person said he would cut and weave. The elephant may be able to CHARGE at that speed, but they cannot change direction quickly. The rebuttal is a terrible one because it's not actually paid attention to what the original argument was claiming. - nahsrocketeer75, on 05/16/2008, -6/+142Here's how you spot one from my ex-wife: Her lips are moving.
- GalacticRerun, on 05/16/2008, -0/+86I prefer the flawless "I know you are but what am I?" and if that fails (which it can't because it's flawless, but if it does) "Takes one to know one" will undoubtedly finish them off.
- Twan2649, on 05/16/2008, -4/+84This is a stupid article. It's a bit of common sense mixed with a few examples.
- drkmccrthy, on 05/16/2008, -10/+72Easier method: "I'm right, you're wrong, and an idiot."
- drkmccrthy, on 05/16/2008, -7/+48idiot.
- lcm133, on 05/16/2008, -5/+38Name-calling is the lowest form of disagreement, the most common and the least effective.
- MaxMWood, on 05/16/2008, -1/+33I felt the article lacked detail.
- shutaro, on 05/16/2008, -0/+28And nothing tops the subtle ironic wit of the "Your Mom" argument.
- Laminarcissus, on 05/16/2008, -1/+29"Man vs. Satellite: Can You Escape?"
“I am on the ground and far below a satellite, and would be able to escape if one were passing overhead by running, as long as I didn't run up.”
and one rebuttal that found the critical flaw:
“Satellites orbit at up to 18,000 mph. Way faster than you can run…” - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -2/+29That's it?
Know your fallacies, never be wrong:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
If logic was thaught at high-school level the entire country would gain 10 IQ points.
That and methodology.
Those two could save humanity from stupidity, so it won't happen.
If America knew just a little bit about logic and fallacies, Iraq would've never happened. And election debates would be laughed at and ridiculed. - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -4/+30If at any time in the argument, your opponent uses the phrase:
"why do you hate:" "Freedom"/"Liberty"/"America"?" - HiddenCanuck, on 05/17/2008, -0/+25You know who else liked to shoot elephants. Nazis.
Argument won! - DiggLive, on 05/16/2008, -2/+25Sweet! Now control over Digg will be mine.. muaahaaha.
- whataboutdave, on 05/16/2008, -5/+26I'm pretty agile and I still wouldn't like my odds against an elephant. It's not unheard of for experienced mahouts to get trampled.
- burketo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+22the merits of elephant dodging is not the point. that was supposed to be an example of good debating but is in actual fact a complete swing and miss. the link deserves to be buried for that terrible example.
- doctorfungi, on 05/16/2008, -2/+18*Rimshot*
- Tamriel, on 05/16/2008, -1/+15Ah, yes... the Bill O'Reilly method.
- kaelyiesta, on 05/16/2008, -0/+14Agreed. This part bugs me the most:
"If you’re in the debate to win[...]"
What is the benefit of such a mindset? Feeling good because you've 'proven' your argument? You may end up believing things that are false because you managed to argue better. Spotting unsound(or invalid, depending on the degree of certainty your argument needs) argument is great, but try to apply it to your own arguments too. You stand a better chance of finding the true answer instead of just the answer you believe is right. - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -1/+15You know, politicians are very helpful for this kind of thing. They make excellent ***** detectors - just have a politician repeat whatever statement it is you're trying to verify. If the politician can repeat it without flinching, then you know it's complete and utter *****.
- Iwantawii, on 05/16/2008, -1/+11"I'm rubber and you're glue so whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks onto you."
- barf314, on 05/16/2008, -1/+11How to spot a weak argument: Look for comments with low ratings or comments that piss you off.
How to destroy a weak argument: Bury. - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+10The quick method:
1) Read Digg
2) Read rebuttals that site actual sources and have a strong basis in measurable data
3) Watch that rebuttal be dugg down into oblivion - HanFastolfe, on 05/16/2008, -2/+12One important component that the author completely missed was to use a spell checker, and proofread. Certain grammatical mistakes can be easily tolerated e.g. using a coma before and after quotation marks, but it shows much about a person who doesn't know the difference between your/you're, there/their/they're. One that really sticks out (to me) is the usage of weather, and whether. While, I, do believe that the content of the idea being presented (no matter how badly) is more important then the delivery, others are not so forgiving.
Before even getting the ad hominem attack the use of profanity should be used more judiciously. Thrust me, I can swear like a drunken sailor, but it proves nothing. We've all heard it a million times, it's dull. If it's used against me I can/will respond in kind, but I have noticed IRL (as should all you) that one is treated differently by the way one speaks. Speak crude, and crassly, and you will be treated accordingly.
Lastly, brevity, something that obviously I have a problem with. So I'll quit now, thanks. - aithk608, on 05/16/2008, -2/+11why do we need an article? you just have to yell "*****' thing SUCKS!" and you will win every time.
- username7D8, on 05/16/2008, -3/+12you know its not a lie when a women starts a sentence with ... "A man once told me..."
blah... dumb joke... go ahead... bury me why don't ya! - swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -2/+11It's circular logic: "I'm right because I'm right." It doesn't lead anywhere.
- shrednwail, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10***** THING SUCKS!
- Spoomeister, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10How to Spot and Destroy Weak Digg Submissions: When they're so short and content-light, you can quote them in their entirety in a Digg comment, thereby depriving them of ad revenue they don't deserve. Like this...
How to spot weak arguments When you’re debating, you’ll come up against many styles of arguing, based on all different levels of arguing. If you’re in the debate to win, you’ll have to spot the flaws in opposing arguments and point them out, or exploit them like a weak spot. Sometimes it’s as easy as listening for fuzzy words. Here are some words and phrases that are easy indications of flaws:
many, all, a lot, every, none, nobody, much, more - Solid arguments use actual numbers with references to their source. These words can indicate implied statistics that show the debater is making up a fact rather than working off real data. Example: “Many Christians disagree”
never, always, usually, tend, trend - These may be blanket statements that imply cause and effect, or assumptions about overall responses and opinions that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Example: “the rich have always been getting richer”
I, I don’t think, I believe - including yourself in the argument can indicate thinking personal experience equals the overall trend. If the debate is not a poll or about individual views, this can be Hasty Generalization.
Here are some examples from CreateDebate:
From: Should the US have seatbelt laws?
Someone who manages to use words from two categories:
“I always choose to wear one”
From: Man vs. Elephant : can you escape?
“I am much more shifty than an elephant and would be able to escape if ONE was chasing me in a large field by cutting and weaving.”
and one rebuttal that found the critical flaw:
“Elephants charge at up to 25mph. Way faster than you can run…”
So next time you’re arguing with friends or proving your point in an online debate, listen in for these hints for weak arguments and when you make your response make it stronger by avoiding the same flaws. - theficus, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Well, I believe that article was a waste of time to read. Many Digg users will agree with me.
Seriously, though, if this article were anything useful it would go into things like identifying and exposing logical fallacies, straw-man arguments, and shoot down redirection (which is exactly what's done with that stupid elephant argument). Of course, that's just my opinion. Oops, according to that article, I just ended up invalidating my own argument. - darzeecompany, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8Certain grammatical mistakes can be easily tolerated e.g. using a coma before and after quotation marks...
I agree. If one slips into a coma before and after quoting someone, it's no fault of their own. - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9"Thats what she said"
Argument won. - replaysMike, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8Winning a debate means you need to know stuff and not talk out your ass.
- woofers07, on 05/16/2008, -2/+9I like "***** you" it totally proves you're right and the other person is a complete idiot
- sparsely, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7*thrusts you*
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8I find this method to be particularly handy for winning any argument.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id= ... - apophenic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7There are responses there that are longer than that article. Buried.
- Mr.Gone, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6I know you are but what am I?
- citizenchan, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9Yeah, well, YOU'RE Stupid.
- havokzero, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Burried, because I don't want anybody else to read this.
It's mine, my own... - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7While, I, do believe that the content of the idea being presented (no matter how badly) is more important then the delivery, others are not so forgiving.
"than" - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Guilt by association is a fallacy.
- hinmanj, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6I know if I were being chased by an elephant, I could get somewhere near that 25mph. I ran against my friend's car a year ago and my limit was 20mph. After watching all those Discovery Channel Human Body episodes, I think the adrenaline would push me that few extra mph. Also I can maneuver better than an angry elephant...
- roflbrothel, on 05/17/2008, -1/+7Humans can run at up to 23 miles per hour (according to official records anyways, it's probably faster if you're being chased by an elephant) and they are much more agile than elephants.
Now, I'm no mathematician but 25 does not seem way higher than 23... - Aggrocragg, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Two things the article missed (but kind of alludes to):
1) Lack of specifics: "An elephant can run fast, but I can run faster." This could be true, but without knowing how fast either runs, the arguer is essentially asking you to take their word for it. "An elephant can run at 25mph, but I can run at 30mph." This is harder to refute since it actually requires the other person to have a knowledge of how fast elephants and humans can run or enough time to research it. (Elephants can run at 15mph, while Michael Johnson was clocked at about 22mph.)
2) Jumps in logic: "I can run fast and can cut and weave. Therefore, I could escape a charging elephant." There are two jumps in logic here. First, the arguer has to prove that he can outrun an elephant (see previous example). Next, as a fall-back argument, the arguer has to prove that cutting and weaving is an effective strategy since elephants cannot turn that fast, cannot visually track someone cutting and weaving, or something else that would prevent the elephant from catching up to him.
The link someone posted in the comments on that page also covers some good logical fallacies: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.a ... - deadfrank, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6dugg b/c the author uses "trend" as a keyword to implicate that someone is unsure/wrong, then uses "trend" in the fourth rule of his own argument.
- doubledowndan, on 05/17/2008, -2/+7Also, he uses "way" in "way faster", which is interchangeable with "much" in this context. Using "much" is one of his 'weak argument' keywords. Very contradictory and confusing. Maybe I am missing something.
- fivefootfour, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5I think you missed the section about not making unsupported generalizations. I'll see if I can find it for you...hey, look at that, it was the first one.
- Eslamicolt3, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6That's great if you're trying to prove to yourself that you're right, but then why are you arguing? Besides, this mostly refers to a structured debate in which you have to point out fallacies in logic. The fallacy you committed is called "Circulus in demonstrando"
- lcm133, on 05/16/2008, -9/+14ass hat
-
Show 51 - 100 of 221 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is