NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed in debates and arguments that people will use certain words and phrases in their arguments that really don’t help out their cause. Below are some of the ones that I could think of along with explanations as to why they’re pointless.

“Evil”
Primary cause for use of said word is to explain that an individual or group is strongly against something. Pointless because somebody could just as easily use said word to describe the before mentioned groups views. The word itself is highly subjective to individual tastes and can be used to counter itself.
Primary use of said word is to employ emphases that one is strongly against something. Emphases of such word is no greater or weaker than the use of the ever dreaded “F” word, and should respectively be treated as such with strict and heavy censorship.

“Civilized”
Primary cause for use of said word is to explain that an individuals or groups beliefs and practices are superior to all other beliefs and practices. Therefore making the user nothing more than an arrogant braggart. Use of said word is similar to saying “we’re better than you, because I say we’re better.” Contributing to the argument nothing than a self righteous notion
Primary use of said word is a blatant attempt to make the opposition beliefs and practices seem less favorable by use of pre adolescent name calling.

Religious Text Quoting
Primary cause for use of such tactic is to use somebody’s well thought out words to help explain how and individual or group feels. Using such tactics is evidence of reduced personal insight and identity with an expanding group identity. Quotes are usually a fragmented piece of a larger message.
Primary use of said tactic is to try to show opposition the primary means by which the view originates. Pointless because motivation is irrelevant compared to the actual view itself while debating or arguing something. Chances are that in some texts the opposition might be able to find it’s own quote within the same text which completely contradicts original statement anyways.

I’m lazy. More later. Or contribute your own.

Hi Crabcake!
What words do you permit to be used? I could raise similar arguments against your use of the words 'pointless', 'arrogant', 'self-righteous', 'pre-adolescent', and there are probably others, but I'm also lazy :) , so I'll leave it there.
BTW, I dislike the word 'civilized' as well.

I definatly agree, especially about the word evil, but quoting religous texts is less pointless, depending on context. If we are discussign morality, and I happen to use a religous text as the basis for my moral compass, becuase my intutition agrees with its message, quoting it could be quite useful for explaining my position. I agree that most uses of religous quotes are simply inflamitory and retorical, but Im playing devil's advocate.

Hi Crabcake!
What words do you permit to be used? I could raise similar arguments against your use of the words 'pointless', 'arrogant', 'self-righteous', 'pre-adolescent', and there are probably others, but I'm also lazy :) , so I'll leave it there.
BTW, I dislike the word 'civilized' as well.


I challenge you to do so then! I dont believe you can explain how using the word pointless is pointless, but good luck!

Hi Crabcake!
What words do you permit to be used? I could raise similar arguments against your use of the words 'pointless', 'arrogant', 'self-righteous', 'pre-adolescent', and there are probably others, but I'm also lazy :) , so I'll leave it there.
BTW, I dislike the word 'civilized' as well.
I don’t permit any words. Or should I say that I cannot permit any words. For you see words are not for me to permit or deny the use of. These are just words that don’t really add anything substantial to any argument, yet are used heavily in hopes that they would.

I challenge you to do so then! I dont believe you can explain how using the word pointless is pointless, but good luck!

I cannot precisely answer your challenge, but this is my off-the-cuff attempt.

POINTLESS:
Primary cause for use of said word is to explain that the speaker has a monopoly on determining the significance (or lack thereof) of a word or a debate tactic.
Primary use of said word is to belittle the opponent's statements without the necessity of supporting argument, with the intention of closing the debate, the speaker having obviously won.

I have to agree

Some others i can think of:

Barbarian.
Savage

Barbarian.
Savage
Those are just words that “civilized” people use. But they still work under the parameters of not adding anything substantial to a debate.

POINTLESS:
Primary cause for use of said word is to explain that the speaker has a monopoly on determining the significance (or lack thereof) of a word or a debate tactic.
Primary use of said word is to belittle the opponent's statements without the necessity of supporting argument, with the intention of closing the debate, the speaker having obviously won.

Well, thats only if the claim of something being pointless is not backed up. and often it is used with the specific intent of opening debate, for example "I think it is pointless to do X, do you agree?" The word evil, in contrast, suggests an absolute moral scale against which things are judged, and therefor you need no basis or reason to say something is "evil," and do not even need to consider why something or someone in "evil"

This very conversation is a testament to the original poster arguement, here we are debating as a direct result of his/her use of the word "pointless."

So there. :P

I cannot precisely answer your challenge, but this is my off-the-cuff attempt.

POINTLESS:
Primary cause for use of said word is to explain that the speaker has a monopoly on determining the significance (or lack thereof) of a word or a debate tactic.
Primary use of said word is to belittle the opponent's statements without the necessity of supporting argument, with the intention of closing the debate, the speaker having obviously won.
He he he
That’s a good one. Although sometimes pointless isn’t always pointless. Good explanation though.

Well, thats only if the claim of something being pointless is not backed up. and often it is used with the specific intent of opening debate, for example "I think it is pointless to do X, do you agree?" The word evil, in contrast, suggests an absolute moral scale against which things are judged, and therefor you need no basis or reason to say something is "evil," and do not even need to consider why something or someone in "evil"

This very conversation is a testament to the original poster arguement, here we are debating as a direct result of his/her use of the word "pointless."

So there. :P

I do believe there is an absolute moral scale, something which you seem to imply the non-existence of, though you do not actually state this. To use the term "evil" does require me to give some indication of the nature of this moral scale, I'll grant you that (It's the Bible!).

Yeah, this conversation is somewhat ironic in its content, but I like it anyway!
So, yah boo sucks to you, with bells on!

as i was reading (and laughing over) the racism thread last night, quoting it outloud, my son informed me that there is a general rule in forum posting:

the first one to mention Hitler LOSES

i think we should all vow to follow this rule especially as the US political season heats up.

invoking hitler, pro or con, is defacto proof of your lack of arguing skills.

(yes even if the thread is about WW2)
(well OK maybe not then, but any other time)

I do believe there is an absolute moral scale, something which you seem to imply the non-existence of, though you do not actually state this. To use the term "evil" does require me to give some indication of the nature of this moral scale, I'll grant you that (It's the Bible!).

Yeah, this conversation is somewhat ironic in its content, but I like it anyway!
So, yah boo sucks to you, with bells on!

You may believe that there is an absolute moral scale written down in a thousand year old book, (Yeah sure, reeeeally likely :P) But do you have any reason or conviction to back that up? I hope so, I hope your morality comes from within, and not just "because the bible says so." You should be saying "the bible says so because X, Y, and Z." X, Y and Z being your convictions. If you take biblical morality at face value whether your gut tells you its true or not, I really feel sorry for you. This is what (I think!) the original poster was getting at in talking aobut he use of the word evil.

as i was reading (and laughing over) the racism thread last night, quoting it outloud, my son informed me that there is a general rule in forum posting:

the first one to mention Hitler LOSES

i think we should all vow to follow this rule especially as the US political season heats up.

invoking hitler, pro or con, is defacto proof of your lack of arguing skills.

(yes even if the thread is about WW2)
(well OK maybe not then, but any other time)

Uhhhh, are you sure you have got the right thread? I don't think anybody mentioned Hitler...

You may believe that there is an absolute moral scale written down in a thousand year old book, (Yeah sure, reeeeally likely :P) But do you have any reason or conviction to back that up? I hope so, I hope your morality comes from within, and not just "because the bible says so." You should be saying "the bible says so because X, Y, and Z." X, Y and Z being your convictions. If you take biblical morality at face value whether your gut tells you its true or not, I really feel sorry for you. This is what (I think!) the original poster was getting at in talking aobut he use of the word evil.

To clarify, my sense of morality is a combination of my personal relationship with God (subjective) and the words of the Bible, translated directly from original languages into English (objective).
I deny the existentialist statement that I, independent of external reality, can determine a valid moral code. I don't believe any individual human, or even any human society, is truly capable of this, which is why I think God gave us some direction in person (Jesus). How does my gut know what's right and what's wrong? We do have conscience, yes, but conscience is kinda fuzzy and incomplete.
You may feel sorry for me. I hope you don't feel I'm being more patronising than you by saying I feel sorry for you.

GJ Crabby. I agree totally. People need be a lot more Eloquent and a lot less Rhetorical.

To clarify, my sense of morality is a combination of my personal relationship with God (subjective) and the words of the Bible, translated directly from original languages into English (objective).
I deny the existentialist statement that I, independent of external reality, can determine a valid moral code. I don't believe any individual human, or even any human society, is truly capable of this, which is why I think God gave us some direction in person (Jesus). How does my gut know what's right and what's wrong? We do have conscience, yes, but conscience is kinda fuzzy and incomplete.
You may feel sorry for me. I hope you don't feel I'm being more patronising than you by saying I feel sorry for you.

If you read my post again, you'll notice that I only feel sorry for those who cannot come to their own conclusions, I have no problem with you basing your conclusions on any source you choose, but you should have reasons for those conclusions other than "because the bible said so" which it would seem, you do. I was being patronizing only to induce you to answer a fundamental question about where morality comes from, and I apologize for coming off like an asshole. You call it a personal relationship with God, I call it a moral compass, its a difference of semantics, either way it comes from within the self. (You would consider God to be everywhere and in everything and everybody, right?)

I also wanted to make the point that the bible is at best a fuzzy moral guide, (i.e Leviticus OKs slavery, but you probobly don't follow the old testament) because morality is a fuzzy area no matter how you choose to define it. Take something like murder; The ten commandments say "Thou shalt not kill." Seems pretty clear-cut, but then we get on to the exceptions: the bible allows for the death penalty for crimes, and justifies Crusades which cause massive loss of innocent life. Then you have to define innocent and guilty, and so on and so on ad infinitum. So, if its not the bible, and not the personal conscience that embodies perfect moraily, how can we as humans know what it is?


Wow we kinda hijacked this thread, huh?

Uhhhh, are you sure you have got the right thread? I don't think anybody mentioned Hitler...

*shaking my head*

isnt the thread about pointless words?

i just gave a little background on why my choice of pointless word came into my head.

comparing <whoever> to hitler is as useless as "barbarian" "civilized" "evil" "bible quotes" etc

ok?

*shaking my head*

isnt the thread about pointless words?

i just gave a little background on why my choice of pointless word came into my head.

comparing <whoever> to hitler is as useless as "barbarian" "civilized" "evil" "bible quotes" etc

ok?

Oh yeah... right.... pointless words...

We hijacked the thread, and I forgot what the original post was about...
don't mind me....

Actually, you are quite right, comparing people to Hitler is pointless, Sorry I was spacing out.

If you read my post again, you'll notice that I only feel sorry for those who cannot come to their own conclusions, I have no problem with you basing your conclusions on any source you choose, but you should have reasons for those conclusions other than "because the bible said so" which it would seem, you do. I was being patronizing only to induce you to answer a fundamental question about where morality comes from, and I apologize for coming off like an asshole. You call it a personal relationship with God, I call it a moral compass, its a difference of semantics, either way it comes from within the self. (You would consider God to be everywhere and in everything and everybody, right?)

I also wanted to make the point that the bible is at best a fuzzy moral guide, (i.e Leviticus OKs slavery, but you probobly don't follow the old testament) because morality is a fuzzy area no matter how you choose to define it. Take something like murder; The ten commandments say "Thou shalt not kill." Seems pretty clear-cut, but then we get on to the exceptions: the bible allows for the death penalty for crimes, and justifies Crusades which cause massive loss of innocent life. Then you have to define innocent and guilty, and so on and so on ad infinitum. So, if its not the bible, and not the personal conscience that embodies perfect moraily, how can we as humans know what it is?


Wow we kinda hijacked this thread, huh?

Nothing wrong in a little hijacking in a good cause (but don't quote me out of context, O.K.?)!
I have come to my own conclusion that God is real, He loves me, He has a wonderful plan for my life, and He has fixed moral standards for the human race to follow, and has left a guide to these in the Bible. The Bible doesn't give a rule for every situation, but it gives a lot of clues as to how God thinks, 'cause He inspired it. No-one forces me to believe these things, except maybe God, but only 'cause I want Him to shape my beliefs. I don't want my morality to come from me; I want it to come from Him. I don't believe God is in everybody in the same way. He is technically present with everybody, otherwise they would cease to exist, but He does not have a personal relationship with everybody, because a lot of people do not accept His terms for the relationship, i.e., He's God, they're not, so they do what He tells them.
The Old Testament is not irrelevant, but a lot of it was culture specific, and the New Testament clarifies and, in a sense, updates some of it. Slavery was culturally specific to that time; the Bible neither universally condemns it, nor universally praises it, though wherever it speaks on it, it raises the moral standards from the existing prevalent culture.
Exodus 20:13 says "You shall not murder" in both Bible translations that I have to hand. The Hebrew language has two different words for 'murder' and 'kill', as does the Greek that the New Testament is written in. The Bible doesn't justify the atrocities that were done by professing Christians during the Crusades, even though the Popes in those days said it did.
The Bible does indeed require a person to think about it to make it relevant to these times we live in, but I still think it's far and away the best objective moral standard we have. Trouble is, you can't effectively apply it unless you have a subjective, personal relationship with the God described therein.

Something else that I would like to throw into the list of meaningless words in debates/arguments. When people try using political stances as an insult, are they really being insulting? A conservative willingly admits to being a conservative. Does it make sense to try to insult them by calling them a conservative? Same things goes with Liberals, communists, socialists, and quite frankly way to many to put down. What brilliant idea is going through people's heads when they think that using this tactic is actually going to accomplish anything? Honestly I’d like to know.

Something else that I would like to throw into the list of meaningless words in debates/arguments. When people try using political stances as an insult, are they really being insulting? A conservative willingly admits to being a conservative. Does it make sense to try to insult them by calling them a conservative? Same things goes with Liberals, communists, socialists, and quite frankly way to many to put down. What brilliant idea is going through people's heads when they think that using this tactic is actually going to accomplish anything? Honestly I’d like to know.

Good point, Crabcake! Nevertheless, it does insult and offend people (sometimes) to apply labels to them that they do not appy to themselves.

For example, I'm a Christian (incidentally, the term 'Christian' was originally an insult used by opponents of the followers of Jesus in the first century A.D.). Now, if someone calls me a 'Jesus Freak' (a term of abuse for Christians in the U.S.) or 'God Squad' (similar term used in the U.K.), that does not offend me, because the terms are reasonably accurate descriptions of my primary identification, that of a follower of Jesus.
However, if someone calls me a hate-filled bigot (or words to that effect), I might get upset, because I don't believe that the term describes me at all; I would consider it slander.
My point is that sometimes people use these terms purely to offend, to get a particular reaction. While that's not a reasonable tactic in intellectual debate, it's a very common use of words. Apparently, some people feel it's a good idea to hurt others with words.

Good point, Crabcake! Nevertheless, it does insult and offend people (sometimes) to apply labels to them that they do not appy to themselves.

For example, I'm a Christian (incidentally, the term 'Christian' was originally an insult used by opponents of the followers of Jesus in the first century A.D.). Now, if someone calls me a 'Jesus Freak' (a term of abuse for Christians in the U.S.) or 'God Squad' (similar term used in the U.K.), that does not offend me, because the terms are reasonably accurate descriptions of my primary identification, that of a follower of Jesus.
However, if someone calls me a hate-filled bigot (or words to that effect), I might get upset, because I don't believe that the term describes me at all; I would consider it slander.
My point is that sometimes people use these terms purely to offend, to get a particular reaction. While that's not a reasonable tactic in intellectual debate, it's a very common use of words. Apparently, some people feel it's a good idea to hurt others with words.
Or they’re just reinforcing collective behavior. Much like as it is with bees. When one bee sting somebody it dies, but a chemical is released that draws in other bees to attack. They collectively attack the individual and points of view in hopes that it might die or at least never speak up again. So I guess that it’s not so pointless after all. But it does seem like one of the dirties, yet accepted, political tactics out there.

Generally I try and restrict myselves from saying things too over-the-top. Like, classifying things as 'evil' or 'civilized' seems a little extreme. Who are we to classify? But it's all a matter of opinion and depending how someone views something, those words will keep reoccuring.

And why is it that people who use such tactics never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever respond whenever I challenge them on such issues? Are they afraid that I’m right? Do they not want to sound stupid trying to back their claims? Are they ignoring this just so that they can continue using their dirty tactics without regrets? Or are they afraid of my FADBA’GS A’12 DB BS?
:mp5:

"Retarded" and "insane" are two words that come to mind, except when talking about such things.
For instance, someone makes an argument. I say "you're retarded" or "that's insane."