"if you just resort to name calling and ad hominems I'm not going to continue this discussion..."

redditor detected. the world isnt a highschool debate normalnigger

Attached: D1fJ2_OXQAASGvg.png (2020x2048, 1.59M)

He's right you know. If you're just running your mouth without saying anything that's normie shit.

>"I understand what you're saying, but I disagree, becau-"
>"Shutup faggot lol"
>"clearly this discussion isnt going anywhere so i'm leaving, I have better things to do with my time"
>"n-no, come back-STUPID NORMIES"
Pathetic

Attached: 1552459596930.jpg (225x225, 6K)

>get in argument
>have been trading insults back and forth during the whole argument
>btfo you but have an insult at the end of my argument
>this argument is over because you insulted me. I win
ok buddy

Attached: welp.png (645x773, 11K)

You don't lose an argument by creating a logical fallacy, you just render your assertion illogical and therefore unworthy of dissection nor debate.
Also, you used a strawman fallacy in this post. That's a whole separate, and I'd argue much more damning, fallacy.

You're an actual fucking nigger if you can't handle being called retarded and made fun of when you say something fucking retarded.

Say dumb shit, get treated like a dumb shit.

Get fucked, get aids and die faggots.

You have to be 18 to use this website, kiddo

They are fallacies and only serve to derail discussions, do we really have to explain why name-calling and ad homs aren't valid arguments?

Because they've won the argument

Attached: ACEEFC3E-7DA6-4C67-9FF4-C39EA6A17365.jpg (1280x720, 125K)

>Discuss things normally
>Criticise their point
>Defend your own
>Try your best to not use strawman while destroying their own
>Find a way to examine their point from a different position in which the same position is favourable for your own (I.e gun rights would be good in this case, which is why I'm against your stance on removing guns)
>Lock them out of their own argument eventually
>Don't call your opponent an expletive
IT'S THAT EASY LADS

>people on Jow Forums
>able to discuss normally
Literally the most popular form of arguing in this site is strawmans, followed directly by ad homs and name-calling.

I genuinely gagged as I saw your gay ass fucking name and tripcode you stupid nigger

But normies are the most guilty of this?
Anything they disagree with is "yikerz you inksell lets unpack this who hurt you xDD"

Spoiler: OP is the normie

you could always go back over to reddit. not even insulting you, but it's obvious you came here from some Jow Forums related subreddit. I don't really see why you think you can just move into a neighborhood and expect everyone to conform to what you were used to in your old one. The best thing is it is easy to go back to your old neighborhood in this case.

"back over to reddit" is indeed another popular form of arguing here.

Please read
thisNormies are the ones who resort to name calling and strawmans and adhomineims when theyre losing an argument. Have an argment with a feminist about thw wage gap and within 2 seconds she'll call you an incel/crybay or imply that someone hurt you.

youtube.com/watch?v=67zEy_hgRPw

Grand example.

It doesn't stop being true though, does it? you know that's where you came from, and it angers you every time someone points it out.

>The wage gap is a myth heres why...
>incel lmao
>Omg who hurt you
>What a cry baby

Attached: 1551075923816.jpg (667x608, 50K)

Because I have no time to waste with someone who would rather focus on some stupid label he projects on me than focus on the point I'm trying to make.
I can tolerate this to an extent if this is IRL and/or the person knows me to an extent because they can make correct assumptions about me(even though they are mostly irrelevant most of the time), but on Jow Forums we're all anonymous and we're all strangers to eachother. If you call me a stupid normie because I disagree with you and you decide to call it a day because, in your mind, it's impossible to disagree with you if I'm also a robot, then nit only do you appear unreasonably paranoid, but you lose all credibility by pretending like you know me and my intents.
Everytime I discuss with people on r9k about sensitive personal issues, I try my best to be neutral and state facts about the situation and be fair and respectful in what I say. I use no insult and make sure that if I appear to be projecting, this is not my intention, but what I draw from the tone of the replies. 98% of the time, the person I discuss with become overly defensive, starts to attack me in return and start telling themselves I must be some normie Chad who infiltrated their safe space to make them feel like shit.
So yeah, it's kind if obvious at this point that I don't want to waste any more time. If your mind is made up about ne even if you don't know me, you won't see me fight to change it.

Projection is also pretty popular, I know.
Thanks for proving my intial point.

>projection
the redditor's favorite word

Insisting that I am a "redditor" is not really different from name-calling and ad homs.

Right on time.

I don't really care though because there's no argument to be had here. you've already proven me right.
>call person redditor
>they get angry
>tell them they're angry
>you're just projecting
>call you out on that
>a-ad h-hom

>have been trading insults back and forth during the whole argument
You weren't having an argument then.
Well it depends on what you define as an insult. Insulting the position you are arguing by pointing its flaws out can seem insulting and but it's not.
You just have a shit position.

You are trying to force a label and now an emotional state on me for stating that people here cannot argue "normally", quite ironically proving my point.

Fuck you nigger queer faggot
FUCK you

There's no point in arguing with people who use the argument as a tool to vent their frustrations.

you getting more angry is only proving my point more, redditor. every time I call your type out, it's like a script executing.
>call person redditor
>they get angry
>tell them they're angry
>you're just projecting
>call you out on that
>a-ad h-hom

So let me get this straight.
If I point out people here cannot argue, then I am a "redditor" and if I reply to some sad attempt to troll I am "angry"?

>literally and ironically proving my point even further

redditor fuck offffff reeeeeeeeeeeeee

Attached: 1550163895138.png (800x480, 197K)

I'm ok with name calling but if you just rely on that while throwing in other fallacy's or outright go full retard and try to put words in my mouth I am just not going to bother.

When people talk about fallacious arguments they talk about the part containing the fallacy, the rest on the other hand may still be a valid argument.

nice. All people do here is label people without proof and say they won because they called you a incel/normie/racist, ect.

Because as a generality, using insults is just a sign that you're close-minded. Insults serve no purpose other than to be sadistic towards your opponent. They are actually harmful in making them agree with you.

The issue isn't using insults, is arguing with them.
If during an argument all I say is "you are retarded" instead of addressing your points then it's a fallacy, if I actually discuss then call you a retard it's not.

Because they think they are the masters of discussion. It's pretty pathetic.

Attached: Pai Nosso.jpg (980x980, 130K)

But what would you get out of calling anyone a retard ever? Especially in a philosophical discussion or some lengthy argument?

Nothing, that's why it's a fallacy.
Fallacious arguments don't add anything to the discussion and only try to confuse, waste time or bait the opponent into being emotional - which some people perceive as "winning".

Calling someone a retard isn't a fallacy unless you use it as the basis for your argument.

Yes, that's what I said here .
Not a fallacy but trying to rile up the opponent is still a dishonest "tactic" anyway.

Let's go down a different route, then.
First, why do you even start by calling out someone for being sonething you are only assuming they are? Based on what? Your own perception of the argument? How is it different than if you were sharing your state of mind with me and how you feel or am axtual valid point about how promiscuity us a problem in our society and I just dismissed you by saying "lol virgin"?
The problem here is that you say something to get a reaction out of someone, then when the person react exactly as you've planned, you call this a victory. This is not discussing, this is trolling.
Now maybe you're saying "well duh you fucking retard!", but I'm only asking because it's not exactly clear whether your intent is actually to troll or if you think this is an actual valid way of sharing and discussing ideas.

user, he's just a fag attempting to be le epic Jow Forums troll. Only reason I didn't ignore him immediately it's because he was giving me pretty good examples of how badly people argue here.

>still this butthurt 1 hour later
living in your head rent free

See, they are very good examples.
So good I can't even tell if he is trying to troll or actually collaborating.

this isn't healthy. you should move on and stop being obsessed with me.

>virgin
all robots are virgins. fucking newfag.

Normies do that? Normies don't know what ad hominem is. Normies are the bullies with the name calling.

I say similiar shit all the time and it's so save time and energy, there is literally no point in wasting your time with "discussing" things with other humans who have no intention on listening. They just want to be right and to "win" the conversation so they resort to stupid shit like name calling. I've wasted hours of my life being polite to trolls trying to do... I don't even know anymore, sharpen my views, clarify stuff?

It's a pointless waste of time typing up 5 paragraphs and then just getting "DUR U AM INCEL" in return.

Normies are the ones who don't get effective communication, truly. They are too shallow and egosoft for it.

Attached: 13466116_250488571986339_4459856303361399290_n.jpg (644x644, 59K)

>Arguments are insults back and forth

No that's just a shouting match between dipshits. A real debate means both people walk around with a better understanding of each other or something they didn't know before.

"Arguments" are ego-stroking displays of stupidity. Especially Internet ones. I think you guys have trouble seeing this because you don't get insulted, to your face, in real life enough to know how annoying, useless and counter productive it is.

Yes, because more of the Internet just wants others to approve of them and if they don't, insult them into submission...

>How do I make babies with her?
You first have to stop having sex with your right hand...

I don't think this is a normie thing.

Why would you want to have a debate with someone who has no intention to further the conversation?

Attached: 1530498591956.jpg (1024x904, 101K)

Is that Melanie Iglesias?

>Try to discuss something with someone
>All they do is insult me
>All they do is refer to my person instead of my points
YEAH I TOTALLY WANT TO CONTINUE "DISCUSSING" WITH A SCREECHING SPERG

Attached: 1548005844284.png (557x625, 343K)

Oh, I'm not arguing that at all, that rule is universal regardless of normie status.

Attached: AD32A176-887D-4F56-92B8-CCEF1E1E2DEA.jpg (720x1063, 105K)

Normalfags are the ones who usually use ad hominems and namecalling though. Don't forget strawmen

Attached: virgin argument vs chad hominem.jpg (2048x833, 131K)

Politicians use ad hominems as a strategy to win an argument, are you saying THEY are normies reeeeeeeee

Well, politicians have to win over normies so they must discuss in a way that persuades them.
If normies discuss with ad homs and other fallacies, they have to use them or they will be the ones seen losing the argument in the eyes of the electors.

take your meds for fucks sake