Why do so many people argue so often so pointlessly?

[AG31]

Here is a list of helpful insights I've gleaned from the back and forth that goes on in AH threads. And more have occurred since that was posted.

 

[caleb35]

It's my party, and I'll argue if I want to
Argue if I want to, Argue if I want to
You would Argue too if it happened to you

Oh, is that right? Well, then, I just want you to know that:

We can argue if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't count and if they don't count
Then they're no friends of mine

 

[TheRedChamber]

Lots of people betraying their age with the Python references. And the lack of anything else from then that was worth remembering.

Who is betraying their age by only making Monty Python references? I didn't get where I am today by only making Monty Python references. In fact, neither Mrs TheRedChamber and I have ever only made Monty Python references.

Bit of an old cock up on the rhetoric front that...

 

[SerenaSteeleMonroe]

Have I ever introduced you to my good friend "Okay"?

Okay, O.K., everyone, let O.K. Coralus speak. Okay? (Or something to that effect).

 

[Actingup]

Since we've plumbed the Monty Python references thoroughly (but it's still a classic sketch!)... I like this graphic a lot - Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. And the blog article that I stole it from quotes from - guess what - Monty Python! It's interesting that ad hominem attacks are not the very bottom of the pyramid.

Perhaps a practical use of this hierarchy is to push ourselves to go one step higher every time we get entrained into an argument.


https://themindcollection.com/revisiting-grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement/

 

[Kelliezgirl]

On and on, day after day, thread upon thread, back and forth, ying and yang with no possibility of either side convincing the other?


How does the same chicken keep crossing the road so many times during rush hour without getting run over?

The purpose of the debate isn't to win the other person over to your side. That's usually pointless. The purpose is to influence the audience. They aren't hardened in their beliefs, they are receptive to new ideas, new perspectives.

 

[Smuttyandfun]

I had an English teacher in high school who loved to engage us in 'Verbal Jousting' as he referred to it. It was fun, and really got us thinking, which I'm sure was the whole point of the exercise.

 

[JGittes]

Someone's wrong on the internet.

It's my job to correct them.

 

[SkyBubble]

 

[LisaMayTurner]

Too many people are unable to say anything against anything, so the whole concept of an argument with people disagreeing is quite alien to them. However, what is at fault is the inability to see the value of disagreeing, arguing against anything, being resistant. Only dead fish go with the flow.

 

[ericalauren]

I rarely attempt to debate or argue with bigots. Today, I told someone on Fb that there are more than two sexes and more than two genders. They sent me maybe 15-17 sentences refuting these facts. They started their tirade by calling me the r-word. I’m not going to bother reading all of that verbal diarrhea. I blocked them. Blocking bigots on social media is one way that I practice self-care.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Why did THAT thread turn?

 

[gunhilltrain]

I rarely attempt to debate or argue with bigots. Today, I told someone on Fb that there are more than two sexes and more than two genders. They sent me maybe 15-17 sentences refuting these facts. They started their tirade by calling me the r-word. I’m not going to bother reading all of that verbal diarrhea. I blocked them. Blocking bigots on social media is one way that I practice self-care.

r-word: racist? Usually people on Facebook argue about why buses replaced streetcars (the streetcar people seem more numerous) even though they're talking about something moot that happened decades ago. They can get quite vociferous about it, however. Many of them are old enough to remember it first hand.

 

[AwkwardMD]

r-word: racist? Usually people on Facebook argue about why buses replaced streetcars (the streetcar people seem more numerous) even though they're talking about something moot that happened decades ago. They can get quite vociferous about it, however. Many of them are old enough to remember it first hand.

Retard. I don’t like using it either, but sometimes it's important to just be clear.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Retard. I don’t like using it either, but sometimes it's important to just be clear.

I've seen quite a bit of that online, often in blogs. A political or social opponent is not just wrong, but, according to the writer, has some kind of mental illness. At it's most extreme, opponents should be exiled and even killed. I think some of them really wish for that. The anonymity of the Internet makes it worse.

 

[Statius]

I find many 'arguments' here on Lit are people just splitting hairs or accusing another of making blanket statements about whatever topic. Some are amusing, reading others becomes tedious really quick. It would probably cut much of it out if everyone here just agreed that blanket statements are bad and are not being made. I've seen many a conversation go down the rabbit hole based on that alone. Like the French soldiers in Monty Python (referring to an earlier statement), talking about swallows- the bird you perverts, ha! That's what it always reminds me of.