One sided and generic arguments that piss you off.

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

These threads always humor me

Most of the complains thrown into these types of threads are one sided and generic arguments...if you don't agree with the argument

Might as well throw mine into the ring:
-Piracy is OK because the game company is EEEEEVIL!!!! (DRM, makes a shit ton of money, labor law issues, etc.)
-Piracy is OK because information WANTS to be free! Why you be caging up information brah!?
-Piracy is OK because it's legal here!
-Piracy is OK because it's just copy-right infringement! You're not hurting anyone!
-Piracy is OK because I wouldn't have bought it anyway.

And so on and so on. Just like they're going to argue about my reasons for why pirates are thieves is a one-sided and generic argument.

You're one of those "Anyone who even thinks about piracy in a positive light should be hung from their balls until death" people, aren't you?

My personal favorite is the "freedom of speech" argument on the internet. You do not have the right to say whatever the hell you want on the internet. That has nothing to do with the right to expression.

Yes. Yes it does. That is the very definition of Freedom of Speech. That you get to say or Speak if you will, virtually anything you want in a public space.

This is why places like 4chan exist.

You have the right to not go there. You have the right to criticize. But they have the right to say what they want.

 

[Vegosiux]

I want to add that not being good at a game is a perfectly valid reason to not like it. Constantly sucking is not fun, and there's no reason you should play a game if you aren't having fun. It's not a valid reason to think that the game is bad, but you don't have to think a game is bad to not like it.

Well, the problem with that argument isn't that not being good at a game would not be a valid reason to like it, but rather that it implies that you're supposed to like the game if you're any good at it.

 

[Lieju]

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.

Opinions are just opinions. If someone says "I believe homosexuality is wrong.", that is a factual statement, they believe that.
However, what your reasoning behind it is, and whether you should have the right to oppress gay people or make them uncomfortable, that's a different issue.

For example, I am disgusted by raw tomatoes. Even seeing them makes me almost puke because I can imagine what they feel like in your mouth. And I can't watch someone eating them.

It is my opinion that raw tomatoes are disgusting.

But I'm not going to argue that they should be made illegal, or go around telling people who eat them how I feel like throwing up.

 

[Vegosiux]

My personal favorite is the "freedom of speech" argument on the internet. You do not have the right to say whatever the hell you want on the internet. That has nothing to do with the right to expression.

Yes. Yes it does. That is the very definition of Freedom of Speech. That you get to say or Speak if you will, virtually anything you want in a public space.

This is why places like 4chan exist.

You have the right to not go there. You have the right to criticize. But they have the right to say what they want.

Well, yes, but they do not have the right to go to my domain and say anything they want there if I choose not to allow it. Free speech means that the government can't persecute you for what you say. If you trash-talk in my house or on an internet domain that I own, I'm still within my rights to tell you to zip it or to kick you out.

Of course on 4chan I can't tell them what they can or can't say, I don't own it, and I'm free to just ignore it while they're free to say whatever the 4chan admins allow.

 

[Master Kuja]

Aside from the standard of people treating their opinion like fact, as well as the whole "your opinion is the wrong opinion" line of thinking, there's also this.

Spoiler: This shit, this shit right here.

I despise this shit. Anyone who pulls this tends to get a reply equating to "Yes, well done, that is my opinion, care to add anything more to this discussion? No? Fuck off then."

 

[karma9308]

My personal favorite is the "freedom of speech" argument on the internet. You do not have the right to say whatever the hell you want on the internet. That has nothing to do with the right to expression.

Yes. Yes it does. That is the very definition of Freedom of Speech. That you get to say or Speak if you will, virtually anything you want in a public space.

This is why places like 4chan exist.

You have the right to not go there. You have the right to criticize. But they have the right to say what they want.

Maybe I phrased what I said wrong. I meant more that when someone complains about a comment getting edited or deleted by a mod they usually claim "You can't do that! I have freedom of speech!!" And they don't. The government can't dictate what they can and can't say, but the domain owner (and the mods) can decided what can and can't be said on the website.

 

[Thomas Hardy]

One of the arguments I despise is when things are falsely reduced to some kind of black-and-white relativism:

i.e.

If it were a male torso would the "zombie bait" statue still be sexist?


THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

The argument is about the treatment of women in media/games/etc. Male/female is totally irrellevant to a discussion about the depiction of women (just women) in games. The same goes for "if it happened to a white guy in a movie" or any kind of absolute opposites...

...Bringing that crap up is just trying to derail the discussion without actually DISCUSSING anything.


Also, there is no news on FOX News. Most of those talking heads never actually ARGUE anything, they just ARGHFR^$#$%FGL!

...they make me mad.

My absolute most hated argument boils down to "I believe it so it must be true." Because that's just ignorant self-delusion and any actual discussion is flatly impossible. One side just yells their talking points and refuses to listen and the other side either does the same or things go nowhere.

 

[FFP2]

I too am greatly bothered by the strawfeminist.

I'm all for equality but people like Anita Sarkeesian give true feminists a bad name.

 

[RJ 17]

Really the arguments that I hate the most are political ones, on any topic. The chances of changing someone's mind - particularly their thoughts on politics - over the internet are slim and none. And yet we have the same sides throwing the same arguments and talking points at each other like two army lines lobbing mortars at each other, only they have about as much impact as a snowball (all they really succeed in doing is annoying the intended target).

But that's what upsets me the most about political arguments: they're ALL the exact same. Take any given topic and both sides will have the same points about said topic that you've seen a thousand times over. "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns!" "If guns make us safer, why isn't the US the safest country in the world?" "Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns." "Any psycho can walk into a gun show and walk out with an arsenal, no questions asked." How many times have you seen these arguments - or variations there-of - in gun debate topics? They're always the same, no knew thoughts or ways to look at the issue, just two groups of people shouting slogans and talking points at one another. The occassional piece of evidence flies through the air only to be countered by an equally compelling piece of evidence from the other side.

The only progress that ever gets made is a progression towards carpal tunnel syndrome due to everyone typing for what ultimately amounts for absolutely no reason.

 

[KissmahArceus]

I hate the Streamlining = Dumber argument.

The more complex something is doesn't immediately make it better,it probably ties in to the whole notion of something becoming popular taints it somehow.

I hate that

 

[Blunderboy]

?Hold on a second! This chap has expressed an opinion different to my own. There is only one possible explanation.
CORPORATE POD PEOPLE!?

Seriously. I?ve been called a ?sheeple? all the time just because I happen to have reached a different opinion.

 

[AnarchistFish]

"Communism has been proved that it can't work in practice"

is the only one I can think of off the top of my head

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

My personal favorite is the "freedom of speech" argument on the internet. You do not have the right to say whatever the hell you want on the internet. That has nothing to do with the right to expression.

Yes. Yes it does. That is the very definition of Freedom of Speech. That you get to say or Speak if you will, virtually anything you want in a public space.

This is why places like 4chan exist.

You have the right to not go there. You have the right to criticize. But they have the right to say what they want.

Maybe I phrased what I said wrong. I meant more that when someone complains about a comment getting edited or deleted by a mod they usually claim "You can't do that! I have freedom of speech!!" And they don't. The government can't dictate what they can and can't say, but the domain owner (and the mods) can decided what can and can't be said on the website.

That makes much more sense.

A private space is a private space and if a person is being an idiot, they get to be thrown out.

No arguments there.

Also, Happy Kazoo Day apparently...

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

?Hold on a second! This chap has expressed an opinion different to my own. There is only one possible explanation.
CORPORATE POD PEOPLE!?

Seriously. I?ve been called a ?sheeple? all the time just because I happen to have reached a different opinion.

Ooh ooh ooh, I have something to lead on from this, when people wish to believe that they're in the minority because it makes them feel smarter for whatever reason, and blindly disagree with mainstream stuff or opinions.

I was once called a sheeple for saying that I didn't think MLP was a good show, despite the fact that I had the idiocy to state that on a MLP tf2 server.
I still get friend requests calling me sheeple.

Sad times.

 

[Inconspicuous Trenchcoat]

Some people who comment on fighting game matches on YouTube can annoy me. No, just because some Japanese players are much more stoic than the American players does not mean the calm party is an inherently better person. Daigo is not a saint just because he is reserved at tournaments. He may or may not be; you don't know him. Showing emotion is not inherently worse than being quiet; there is no universal standard for that, it's just your opinion. Also, Justin Wong is not an all-encompassing representation of Americans; he's overweight and let's his emotions show through, yes, that doesn't mean he can be judged (and you can't extrapolate your judgements on his character to all Americans) just because you've seen a incredibly brief slice of his life in an competitive environment. I don't hate JW or Daigo or anyone else, because I don't know them, and can't judge them based on tiny snippets of their life. Dem hype fightin' game playing shure dur entertairn me dough.

So, I don't like YouTubers who condemn or lift up whole societies or cultures based on their distant, nigh context-deprived, viewing of a 15 second glimpse into someone's mannerisms at a fighting game tournament.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

Here's one that never fails to annoy the shit out of me whenever I hear it. I'll put it like this

Me: "Man this game sucks."

Person: "no this game does not suck. This game is good and you should not say otherwise."

Me: "Well I think it sucks. Why should I think otherwise?"

Person smirks shortly, as a smug smile washes over his/her face, a gesture implying their predisposed belief of them successfully winning the argument by utilizing their skill in sharp observation, and stating facts of life.

Person inhales deeply, and assumes a victorious stance much alike a proud warrior standing atop a slain Dragon, as he/she bellows their response thusly, swiftly, and decisively ensuring victory over yet another internet argument:

[HEADING=1]"Because it sold a lot of copies"[/HEADING]

Well so fucking what?

This is perhaps one of the biggest cop-out arguments. When calling someone a "hater" or "noob" or "jealous" isn't enough, they reach for something they believe is more tangible, and it's almost always this. And it's something I've heard quite a lot of people say on this site alone. I honestly can't believe those people even listen to themselves when they say this.

Since when was how-much-money-made-off-anything used as defacto quantifiable method of measuring how -good- the thing in question is?

What these people are saying is that any single game in history that has sold a lot is, in fact, a good game. A fact which cannot be debated.
And any game that has not sold a lot is, in fact, a bad game. A fact which cannot be debated.

Also, when have people stopped throwing money at stupid/horrible shit? I'm pretty sure a lot of people paid a grand sum of a lot of money to see Transformers and Twilight in theaters. Are you saying that these 2 series of movies are, in fact, good? Because they made a lot of money? They HAVE to be good, right? Cause like, they made a lot of money. Right? Eh?

 

[thejackyl]

This is an argument I have with a friend of mine pretty much every time I log onto Steam to play a game that isn't CoD (Which I haven't played since MW2, since I don't like the games) Anyways...

"Why are you playing that shitty game?"
"Because I find it fun"
"How an you have fun with that, it's such a shitty game"
"Okay, what makes it a shitty game?"
"I haven't played it"
"Why not try the demo"
"No, it's a shitty game"

Spoiler: The list of games I've had this conversation with include(May or may not have the demo line)

EYE Divine Cybermancy
Skyrim
Far Cry 3
Hitman Blood Money and Absolution
Fallout 3 and New Vegas
FTL
Gotham City Imposters (He bought a 4 pack so me and a few friends could play together, and he NEVER played it)
Max Payne 3
Mafia 2
Metro 2033
TF2
Thief Series
The Walking Dead
X-COM Ufo Defense and Enemy Unknown

This one happens at the end of EVERY Expansion
Him: I'm never playing WoW again
*Patch for next Expansion comes out*
Him: Andrew, come back to WoW
Me: No, WoW is boring
Him: You only hate it because you suck
Me: No, I hate it because other than grinding the only thing to do is talk to the guild... which I can do outside of the game anyways (Facebook, Steam, etc.)
Him: No, you just suck.
Me: Okay... *Calls friends from said guild on Skype* Hey Pad, Iris; who sucks at Wow me, or Cath(All ingame nick names)
Pad/Iris: Well... considering you were in our 25-man Ulduar Hardmode team, always the last one alive and highest one the meters, and he... wasn't...
Him: Fuck you *Rage quits Skype*
He tends to do that when confronted with facts, If he's wrong he just stops talking and broods for like 2-3 days.

Bonus argument:

Him: Why don't you play *Insert multiplayer focused game here* with me?
Me: Because every time we decide to start a game, I have to work and you end up 30 levels higher than me, and I have to play catch up because you refuse to play with me until I'm at your level.
Him: No I don't
*Note: This happened with LoL, D2, D3, WoW, DDO, Torchlight 2, Guild Wars 2, and Borderlands 2*
In Diablo 3 we beat Act 1 around 2am, and I had to work at 6am, so I went to bed. When I logged in after work he was level 44 and in Hell Mode (I think) and I was still level 10 or 11.

 

[Ickorus]

Here's one I hate with the fury of a thousand suns:

If something is the arguers definition of what they're accusing it of then it is that regardless of intent behind the item or action in question, doesn't matter if that person didn't even consider it would be offensive or whether they even knew it could be taken offensively, it is what they're accusing it of solely because they think it is.

FUCK that argument, the only way to win it is to change the person's definition of the subject matter.

 

[tippy2k2]

These threads always humor me

Most of the complains thrown into these types of threads are one sided and generic arguments...if you don't agree with the argument

Might as well throw mine into the ring:
-Piracy is OK because the game company is EEEEEVIL!!!! (DRM, makes a shit ton of money, labor law issues, etc.)
-Piracy is OK because information WANTS to be free! Why you be caging up information brah!?
-Piracy is OK because it's legal here!
-Piracy is OK because it's just copy-right infringement! You're not hurting anyone!
-Piracy is OK because I wouldn't have bought it anyway.

And so on and so on. Just like they're going to argue about my reasons for why pirates are thieves is a one-sided and generic argument.

You're one of those "Anyone who even thinks about piracy in a positive light should be hung from their balls until death" people, aren't you?

Well shit, someone FINALLY figured out who I really am. As someone who thinks that piracy is bad, I obviously believe that everyone who is a pirate is the scum of the Earth. As someone who thinks that piracy is bad, I obviously believe that they should have their hands cut off every time they download something (for without hands, they cannot download). As someone who thinks that piracy is bad, I obviously believe that if they manage to pirate without their hands, THAT's when they get hung by the balls until death...

Seriously dude? I have no problem with people who wish to debate but if you're not going to do it with some respect, don't bother at all.

EDIT: Alright, Mr. Connery has proven to me with a nice and happy response below that he's not a jerk and is actually very reasonable. I take back my sarcastic assholery response

 

[Genocidicles]

"You just didn't like it because you're too close minded!"

I mainly got this with MLP. I found it to be an overly saccharine piece of crap with boring conflict resolution. That doesn't make me close minded. I actually gave the show a chance before I hated it.