Than I have nothing against it. It is often good to get a "third perspective" in an otherwise stagnant debate. But when the person brings absolutely nothing new to the table and only rephrases some bits and pieces of the arguments already made. That ticks me off.Shakomaru said:What if they have thought it through and have come up with evidence showing that the two really ARE equal?Haukur Isleifsson said:It really bugs me when people see two sides arguing and automatically assume that "the truth" lies somewhere right between the two sides.
People coming into a long standing debate with no real understanding of the issue and believing that they can show off they're superior intellect by "seeing both sides" and "agreeing with both". Neutrality doesn't automatically make you right.
And the smugness with which this is usually done is unbearable to me.
It is really the question of making a third argument that may to some degree agree with some of the points of the other arguments but including some original thoughts and new perspectives. Or making a pseudo-argument made up of nothing but rewording of other arguments and a general "you're both wrong therefor I'm right" sentiment.