Hierarchy of Arguments: from bad ways to good ways to disagree

[lpetrich]

The hierarchy of disagreement: The best and worst argument techniques | Big Think noting How to Disagree

That article contains a diagram of a pyramid of techniques ranging from name-calling to refuting the central point. Here are that pyramid's contents, from bottom to top.

DH0. Name-calling
DH1. Ad hominem
DH2. Responding to tone
DH3. Contradiction
DH4. Counterargument
DH5. Refutation
DH6. Refuting the central point

 

[untermensche]

1,2 and 3 are all equally worthless in terms of addressing an argument but sometimes necessary when dealing with pests who have no arguments.

And not allowing them is like not allowing somebody to swat a mosquito.

 

[fromderinside]

Are you denying insects are life?

 

[untermensche]

Are you denying insects are life?

They make themselves unworthy of life when they try to take my blood.

They started it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The hierarchy of disagreement: The best and worst argument techniques | Big Think noting How to Disagree

That article contains a diagram of a pyramid of techniques ranging from name-calling to refuting the central point. Here are that pyramid's contents, from bottom to top.

DH0. Name-calling
DH1. Ad hominem
DH2. Responding to tone
DH3. Contradiction
DH4. Counterargument
DH5. Refutation
DH6. Refuting the central point

Yep, but it's amateur. It's just the basics. We here do a lot better than that. We criticise minor points, attack strawmen. I personally like to criticise the English, which isn't ad hominem because it's about the post, not the poster, and if the English isn't good enough, what's the point of addressing the substance? We achieve the same by pretending not to understand what the opponent says. I personally like to ignore a poster and have a look now and then to see how he goes round and round. We also like to criticise the logic, of UM for example, a lot. We also all use innuendoes. And other things... We're the real pros.
EB

 

[lpetrich]

I saw that argument pyramid again recently, and I've decided to post its entire contents:

• Refuting the Central Point: explicitly refutes the single point
• Refutation: finds the mistake and explains why it's mistaken; uses quotes
• Counterargument: contradicts and then backs up contradiction with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
• Contradiction: states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
• Responding to Tone: criticizes the tone of the writing without attacking the substance of the argument
• Ad Hominem: attacks the characteristics or the authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
• Name-Calling: sounds something like this: you are an ass hat

 

[fromderinside]

• Name-Calling: sounds something like this: you are an ass hat

Some reasoning must be presumed since 'you', 'ass', and 'hat' are objects where the whole set can be seen as a complex object.

Certainly there are worse forms of argument.

.... in search of a baseline ....

 

[untermensche]

Not name calling: Your argument is total shit.

It is non-specific but it is not calling any delicate flower a name.