One sided and generic arguments that piss you off.

[Baron von Blitztank]

It always seems to annoy me when people say "If you don't like it then don't watch it" when people are talking about things they hate.
I mean how can they have an opinion on it if they haven't seen it? I'm sure if they didn't like it then they will halt any further viewings but that still means that they have an opinion on it and they should be able to express it!

 

[Lieju]

Sure, why not. I'll play. There's a few I particularly hate.

THE ARGUMENT: IT HAPPENS TO MEN ALL THE TIME
WHERE WE SEE IT: In every feminism/gender wars thread.
HOW IT'S USED: As a rebuttal intended to debunk a claim that something bad happens to women. Woman is raped? Men get raped too you know! Woman faces prejudice? Men face prejudice too you know!
WHY I HATE IT: It's completely irrelevant, and presumes that men and women are competing teams attempting to stockpile outrages for the purposes of winning the sympathy sweepstakes. If bad things happen to group A, bad things also happening to group B doesn't make what happened to group A any less bad, or their complaints any less valid.

Yes, this is so frustrating.

Especially since men face their share of sexism. A guy liking romance? Gay. A man wanting to become a kindergarten teacher? A pedophile. And of course moms are tthe ones who should get the kids if there's a divorce...

But do these guys complain about this stuff when they aren't trying to shoot down complaints from feminists?
The truth is, getting rid of sexism benefits everyone, and often the issues feminists raise affect men as well.

As for arguments that annoy me, pretty much the kind of "But this is what happens in real life!" when you complain about the lack of female characters or other races than white in something like fantasy.

And I'm sick and tired of hearing "But rape happens to women in real life!"

Yes, yes it does, but if you put rape in you better handle it well. Some of my favourite books have rape scenes or dub-con in them ('Man whose teeth were all exactly alike', is one of my favourite books, and it has a very creepy rape scene, where you might actually symphatise with the rapist.), but it's too common to put rape in to get sex and nudity in. They are often filmed in such a way that sexualises the act, focusing on the woman and the skin she shows.

2. My right to not be offended is greater than the right for you to say things I don't like/find offensive.

Self explanatory. If you don't want to hear what I have to say on the internet, there are plenty of other places where I'm not talking.

Because the Internet belongs to you. All of it.
That might work for you on your own blog or on sites where you decide the rules, but on a forums like this, there are rules you have to follow, or face the banhammer.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

Well I'm probably gonna open a can of worms with this but.

Spoiler

Anyone who tries to use this as the basis of their argument is missing the point.

As for a more gaming related example. I hate it when people try to suggest that the lack of women in gaming means that the industry is sexist. Most companies would be more than happy to hire female devs. Thing is though that just not that many women study game development.

Well, I find the following argument extremely irritating, and super ineffective.

"You're missing the point!" Alternative: "Thanks for not understanding!" Alternative alternative: "You don't understand!"
These are usually followed by nothing, zero, zilch, empty space.

We saw a lot of this from the Retake Mass Effect crowd. "Someone made a video, or wrote an article, disagreeing with the Retake Mass Effect movement? Copy paste this reply: 'You don't understand! Holding the Line!!!'. That'll show them to have an opinion different from yours."
...Yeah, you sure showed them. Considering that those who did defend the bad ending claims actually made effective arguments, just regurgitating such a knee-jerk reply was rather pathetic.

It is really sad to claim people are "missing the point," or "not understanding," of your argument then fail to state what the point is. Makes me wonder if you even have a point in first place. Can't "miss" or "misunderstand" a non-existent point.

Another two "arguments", that's been mentioned before, that I'll add to are:

"You don't like the game because you're not good at it!"

Well, no $#!+ Sherlock! News flash: Not liking an activity/game/sport because you're no good at it is a perfectly valid reason. If I'm playing a game where I'm getting, as Yahtzee put it, "pounded into the dirt" constantly, then I get bored.

Losing isn't bad, but having no chance is awful.

" has been dumbed down because they removed the X stats or skills, or replaced X stat or skill with Y stat or skill."

Most of the time the stats, or skills, that were removed were a waste or just add mindless busy work to the game. Hence why they were removed. It was meaningless complexity that actually made the game shallow, not deep.

Complexity does NOT equal Depth.

 

[Lieju]

-Piracy is OK because the game company is EEEEEVIL!!!! (DRM, makes a shit ton of money, labor law issues, etc.)

This one I might find myself agreeing in some cases. If were talking about a game that's purely for propaganda, or made by very despicable people, and I'd need to play it to know what it's about, I wouldn't want to give money to them. Thus pirating or renting/buying used.

Not that this is much of an issue, because games like that are usually very small budget, and free. The only one I can think of is the Left Behind-game. I'm a bit curious, but not enough to play it.

As for a more gaming related example. I hate it when people try to suggest that the lack of women in gaming means that the industry is sexist. Most companies would be more than happy to hire female devs. Thing is though that just not that many women study game development.

Well, obviously the question we should be asking is; why are there less women studying on this field?

However, when some field is dominated by one sex, they can end up being uncomfortable for the others. My mom's husband works in a programming-company, and it's kinda a boys' club.
It's not that they're actively shunning the women, but when the guys take skiing-trips together where they compete who is the toughest man and talk work-stuff in a sauna, a woman in a company might feel unwelcome. But it's not like he'd even notice it. He wanted me to get on a programming-field (I ended up studying other math-related stuff), and I don't think he noticed the stuff he and his work-friends said in company that might make a woman (or someone gay) uncomfortable.

 

[JemothSkarii]

I probably shouldn't bring this one up due to recent tension on the subject but:

Your opinion is the wrong opinion

It was namely in one of the 'gay' threads popping up, and it's always been one of those STUPID arguments for me. It's like saying 'Your argument doesn't matter because I don't believe you lalalalala'. It seems like a 12 year old with no rebuttal came up with this, argh!

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

Pretty much anything that is a fact, but people treat it as if they can have an opinion on it. Like when people say "being gay is wrong", that's not you voicing your opinion; that's just you being wrong.

 

[ComradeJim270]

I probably shouldn't bring this one up due to recent tension on the subject but:

Your opinion is the wrong opinion

It was namely in one of the 'gay' threads popping up, and it's always been one of those STUPID arguments for me. It's like saying 'Your argument doesn't matter because I don't believe you lalalalala'. It seems like a 12 year old with no rebuttal came up with this, argh!

I use this one now and then, but it's always couched in so much snark that you'd have to be looking for things to get pissed off about to take it seriously.

 

[scorptatious]

To be fair, that has more to do with possessing pattern recognition.

Hmm. When you put it that way, it makes sense. I'd imagine most people who believe all Americans are stupid have only heard about Americans that made their way to the news by doing something stupid. Or by how our leaders behave, but that's a whole other can of worms.

It's actually something that I was just reading in my Psychology textbook for school. It was something along the lines of people perceiving things differently from one another because of their mental framework that was molded by their experiences and how they were raised. So I guess it isn't too hard to imagine that the people who say those kinds of things have either little to no experience with the regular people who just go about their lives in the country they are referring too.

Still bugs me when someone does that though. :/

Agree on the first point. Anyone who tries to use another person's home as some sort of justification as to why they're "wrong" loses all merit, especially when you consider the fact that stereotypes hardly ever pertain to most people put in such a profile.
You say "we are not all like that". I'd go even further and say VERY FEW of us are like that when you take a look at how large our population really is.

However, I myself have made some "nice job America" statements of my own in the past. I don't ever really think of myself referring to the American population as a whole so much as those members of our country who make the rest of us look bad. Almost like a "C'mon, guys. We're better than that."

Anyway, I also hate any argument where someone's opinion is somehow less credible because they weren't around to experience a certain moment in entertainment media. "You wouldn't understand because you're too young. Did you even own an N64? Didn't think so, newfag. You just lost all credibility."

Bullshit.

I guess it isn't too bad if someone was just joking around. But I can never really tell the difference as you can't really detect something like that in plain text without a disclaimer. *shrugs*


Also, the argument referring to how young someone is reminds me of this video:


Goddamit, I love Ukinojoe.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Pretty much anything that is a fact, but people treat it as if they can have an opinion on it. Like when people say "being gay is wrong", that's not you voicing your opinion; that's just you being wrong.

I have a problem with this line of thinking; while there might be quite a bit of evidence leaning towards a latter, nothing in this societal sense is a fact. While I agree that homosexuality is fine, people are still subject to an opinion on the matter. It's like saying (for an example) that religion is wrong due to a large amount of scientific evidence. Sure, evidence might lean to such a belief, but their opinion should still be noted.

 

[MarsProbe]

Not really an argument, but any time someone uses the phrases goes something along the lines of (talking about something they don't like): "I've decided that it doesn't exist". All they are doing here is actually saying that they don't like something, so why don't they just say that? I don't know for sure, but it almost seems like they cannot possibly cope with the idea that they share reality with something they don't like that much, so instead they create their own little version of reality where said thing seemingly does not exist. Of course, this would also seem to halt y further discussion on the matter as it leaves no room for you to say why you actually happen to like said thing. After all, anyone that acknowledges the existence of something they have themselves denied the existence of must be crazy, right?

Captcha: smell that

Now that's just being rude.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

Pretty much anything that is a fact, but people treat it as if they can have an opinion on it. Like when people say "being gay is wrong", that's not you voicing your opinion; that's just you being wrong.

I have a problem with this line of thinking; while there might be quite a bit of evidence leaning towards a latter, nothing in this societal sense is a fact. While I agree that homosexuality is fine, people are still subject to an opinion on the matter. It's like saying (for an example) that religion is wrong due to a large amount of scientific evidence. Sure, evidence might lean to such a belief, but their opinion should still be noted.

Science is ever changing: what we believe one week might not necessarily be what we believe the next. As far as I'm aware: nothing in science has outright proven religion to be wrong, and it is possible to believe in both. Also believing in one or the other doesn't really hurt anyone. If someone believed in God, and another person believed in Science, both those people could hold those beliefs without affecting the other.

On the other hand, people who believe being gay is wrong are directly hurting other people. I'm just going to put it out there: there has never being a good argument for why being gay should be considered wrong. It is just a bunch of people blinded by fear because "oh my god... they're different.... help!", and anyone who believes being gay is wrong deserves to never find love.

 

[Dead Seerius]

To be fair, that has more to do with possessing pattern recognition.

Hmm. When you put it that way, it makes sense. I'd imagine most people who believe all Americans are stupid have only heard about Americans that made their way to the news by doing something stupid. Or by how our leaders behave, but that's a whole other can of worms.

It's actually something that I was just reading in my Psychology textbook for school. It was something along the lines of people perceiving things differently from one another because of their mental framework that was molded by their experiences and how they were raised. So I guess it isn't too hard to imagine that the people who say those kinds of things have either little to no experience with the regular people who just go about their lives in the country they are referring too.

Still bugs me when someone does that though. :/

Agree on the first point. Anyone who tries to use another person's home as some sort of justification as to why they're "wrong" loses all merit, especially when you consider the fact that stereotypes hardly ever pertain to most people put in such a profile.
You say "we are not all like that". I'd go even further and say VERY FEW of us are like that when you take a look at how large our population really is.

However, I myself have made some "nice job America" statements of my own in the past. I don't ever really think of myself referring to the American population as a whole so much as those members of our country who make the rest of us look bad. Almost like a "C'mon, guys. We're better than that."

Anyway, I also hate any argument where someone's opinion is somehow less credible because they weren't around to experience a certain moment in entertainment media. "You wouldn't understand because you're too young. Did you even own an N64? Didn't think so, newfag. You just lost all credibility."

Bullshit.

I guess it isn't too bad if someone was just joking around. But I can never really tell the difference as you can't really detect something like that in plain text without a disclaimer. *shrugs*


Also, the argument referring to how young someone is reminds me of this video:


Goddamit, I love Ukinojoe.

Haha thanks for sharing the vid. I also love Ukinojoe but it's been a while since I've checked out his channel.
In hindsight I probably should've used an example other than the the N64 since it was actually during my time but I suppose the point is still the same.

 

[corneth]

"why do gays need their own X?"
"I'm not racist/homophobic, I love Dave Chappelle/Pitbull/Neil Patrick Harris, but why do (insert minority) do (insert any behavior)?"

 

[BloatedGuppy]

so you are in favor of the drowning threads?

As I am not a forum moderator, what threads I do or do not favor of are no relevance to anyone other than me. If a thread does not interest me, I simply decline to click on it.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

It is really sad to claim people are "missing the point," or "not understanding," of your argument then fail to state what the point is. Makes me wonder if you even have a point in first place. Can't "miss" or "misunderstand" a non-existent point.

There is no need to state my point. It will be obvious to those that agree with me and I'd rather not have this thread derail into a gun control thread

 

[Brainwreck]

Um.
All arguments are one-sided. They have to be. An argument is, by definition, arguing for a certain side in any kind of debate.

With that out of the way, I hate people who say stuff like 'yeah but shut up'.
That's not an argument. That's being a fuckass.

 

[JagermanXcell]

"Haters gonna hate"

Why this one? Cause whenever there is LEGITIMATE REASON AND FACTS FOR MY DISLIKE FOR A CERTAIN SOMETHING ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ITS MY OPINION this phrase will still get thrown my way.

Ex. Me: I don't like the new DMC, gameplay looks slow, and Dante's character isn't fun anymore not to mention Ninja Theory insulted the fan base of the past games.
Douchebag: HUR DUR NO YOUR MAD CAUSE OF TEH HAIR, HATR GONNA HATE!!!
Me: *throws laptop out the window* Also it is spelled "you're" douchebag...

 

[ComradeJim270]

"Haters gonna hate"

Why this one? Cause whenever there is LEGITIMATE REASON AND FACTS FOR MY DISLIKE FOR A CERTAIN SOMETHING ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ITS MY OPINION this phrase will still get thrown my way.

Ex. Me: I don't like the new DMC, gameplay looks slow, and Dante's character isn't fun anymore not to mention Ninja Theory insulted the fan base of the past games.
Douchebag: HUR DUR NO YOUR MAD CAUSE OF TEH HAIR, HATR GONNA HATE!!!
Me: *throws laptop out the window* Also it is spelled "you're" douchebag...

There are some people where this is probably a sensible response. If you're making a rational, reasonable argument against a game it's obnoxious, but if people are just bashing a game for the sake of bashing it, I have no problem with someone saying this. In those cases it basically means "Your stated reasons for hating this game are so silly and contrived that I'm not going to waste my time refuting them."

 

[JagermanXcell]

"Haters gonna hate"

Why this one? Cause whenever there is LEGITIMATE REASON AND FACTS FOR MY DISLIKE FOR A CERTAIN SOMETHING ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ITS MY OPINION this phrase will still get thrown my way.

Ex. Me: I don't like the new DMC, gameplay looks slow, and Dante's character isn't fun anymore not to mention Ninja Theory insulted the fan base of the past games.
Douchebag: HUR DUR NO YOUR MAD CAUSE OF TEH HAIR, HATR GONNA HATE!!!
Me: *throws laptop out the window* Also it is spelled "you're" douchebag...

There are some people where this is probably a sensible response. If you're making a rational, reasonable argument against a game it's obnoxious, but if people are just bashing a game for the sake of bashing it, I have no problem with someone saying this. In those cases it basically means "Your stated reasons for hating this game are so silly and contrived that I'm not going to waste my time refuting them."

Very true, but the term in general just sounds childish imo, it also tends to be the silencer of truth if you know what I'm getting at. Nothing gets solved and people remain blind sheep, either because of their ignorance, or this damn term.

 

[Evil Cabbage]

I thought I'd be able to resist posting for a while, but oh well; here we go.

1.) "Your argument is wrong because you're a racist/politically correct/etc"

This one tends to be used by both sides of politics and is basically an ad hominem. An argument is not wrong purely because the person is perceived by the opposing party as being racist or politically correct. The argument is wrong because it is either untrue, or follows flawed logic.

2.) "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

In and of itself, this isn't necessarily a bad argument. However, I personally find that often people will use this to simply ignore any perceived problem with something instead of refuting the thing that is supposedly 'broken.'

3.) "DLC is inherently evil"

Provided that the DLC is not released immediately after launched, DLC is really no different to a miniature expansion pack. If a company (such as Bethesda) releases DLC well after the launch date, you weren't being 'robbed of the full experience when you bought the game' because at that point the DLC didn't exist.

4.) "Making a game accessible to a more casual audience inherently[\i] makes a game less accessible to 'hardcore' players."

There is no reason why this would be the case provided that[\i] both 'modes' are designed well and fit their intended audience. Additionally, the idea "that someone beat the game on an easier difficulty cheapens a hardcore player's playthrough" doesn't really make sense to me. If you want to play a game for a sense of accomplishment or bragging rights, then really having multiple difficulties would actually make that accomplishment greater. Think about it: If there's only one difficulty, you're only better than people who didn't play the game. If there's more than one, you're not only better than those who didn't play the game, but also many who did.

5.) "All statistics are wrong" OR "statistics are only right when they're convenient/reinforce my views"

I concede that some studies most certainly use flawed methods to collect their data. I also concede that studies are unlikely to be absolutely 100% accurate. However, good studies are the most accurate way we have to gather information on a population and certainly trump one person's anecdotal evidence in most cases.

6.) "Corporations exist to make money, therefore your criticism about environmental damage/pay rates/workplace abuse/etc is invalid."

This one irks me quite a bit really. While it's true that corporations do exist to make money, as a society, we frequently evaluate and argue over whether or not various developments are worth their costs. I see no reason why corporations should be exempt from this when we do it for almost every other facet of life.

7.) "Through observation, some members of a group act in a bad way. Therefore, it's okay to treat all members of said group as if they act that way."

For some this can be applied to various racial groups, and online it can be applied to the likes of Bronies and Furries. By all means, judge people by the way they act towards you, but don't judge them before you've even spoken to them. If anything, it's just plain rude.

Phew... that was longer than I thought.