What are your least favorite arguments?

Right now, my least favorite argument about why the Jews shouldn’t negotiate with the Palestinians is because the Palestinians don’t accept Israel’s right to exist.

Well I’ve been sick of the faux-categorical opposition between “science” and “religion” or “evolution” and “religion” ever since high school…

I also detest the argument that one should “tolerate” or “accept” gay people because they can’t help but be gay, it’s innate. I don’t think it helps anyone’s sexual liberation to argue that sexual orientation/preference is always-only-ever a simple genetically determined trait (it makes it seem fixed and static, which it most certainly is not, and outside of the realm of culture and society, which it isn’t either!) and indeed I’m sure it makes some virulently homophobic eugenicists drool…

I dislike political or philosophical arguments. All are along a continuum of grey and folks get all wrapped up in their position, warts and all.
I am loving the Palestinian conundrum from the sidelines because regardless of what agreements are made; concessions Israel makes. Those dumb johns will still lob missiles into Israel and a swarm of angry Jews will come as if spring loaded and kick Palestinian ass. I would not be surprised to see Israel kick all the Palestinians out of Gaza and re-annex it. All because of a few idiots who can’t seem to control their urges to shoot stuff at Israel. (who’s Army could probably kick the US Army’s buttocks)

@bookish1 Same. Furthermore, homosexuality doesn’t have to be innate. Even if homosexuality were a choice, that still doesn’t give people the right to discriminate. So when people say “you can’t discriminate against me because I didn’t choose to be this way” that implies that if you did choose it, discrimination would be permitted.

Trying to use the Bible to justify hatred towards the marginalized.

“who created god” is actually one of my favourites, because it exposes the opponent’s special pleading fallacy, e.g. the assumption that the universe needed creation, but this god is relieved of that requirement for no reason whatsoever.

About the differences between socialism and communism.

Any attempt at discussion of any kind with irrational lunatics that have the IQ of a garden slug and the EQ of a toddler. Stupid is bad enough, irrational AND stupid is insufferable.

I think any argument has the capacity to be annoying or aggravating.
Just as any argument has the potential to: surprise, be fun, and or be educational, or informative.
I think it is the manner in which it is undertaken.
Guess @Coloma and I are catching a ride on the same wave length today.
Cheers

Against gay marriage…

“It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!”

Well, if it WAS Adam and Steve, I might actually read the Bible.

“If we let gay oeople get married, we might as well let people marry their animals!”

Really? Really?!

“It’ll ruin the sanctity of marriage!”

Yes, we need to do whatever we can to protect that 50% divorce rate. The only way gay marriage can ruin your “traditional” marriage…is if you’re gay.

Any argument in which anyone involved refuses to concede that maybe, just maybe, their view might not be 100% right and that maybe, just as they are adamant that their opponent(s) is(are) wrong, they, too, could be wrong without knowing it. Whenever I get involved in a debate of any sort, I always preface my argument with “I could be wrong, and do correct me if I am, but…” I just hate how unwilling people are to see things from the other side’s perspective even if they are, in fact, wrong.

And I’m right there with @Coloma and @livelaughlove21, too!

@livelaughlove21: Bwahaha, Adam and Steve, that made me laugh out loud. You might be interested in this title as well…
And the sanctity-o-marriage one kills me too… I’m in your closet, plotting the demise of your straight union!

@livelaughlove21 Yeah, I have met few good anti-gay marriage arguments, and the “Adam and Steve” one is one of the worst. I just always counter with “Interracial marriage is wrong; It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Laqueesha”.

@DominicX Ok that last bit definitely made me burst out laughing! Adam and Laqueesha…best thing I’ve heard all day!

Every person I’ve ever met, on math: “When will I use this in life?”
Well, first, congratulations, you’re a moron.
Why is math the only subject people say his about? You’ll smile like a happy idiot when you learn what a haiku is, and you’ll never use that in your “life”. When was the last time you wrote a haiku, asshole?

@AshLeigh : I get similarly frustrating responses when I attempt to teach history to American 18 year olds.

@livelaughlove21 Hey, whats wrong with marrying an animal? People do it every day. lol
I joke that my 14 yr. old pet goose ” Marwyn” is the best “man” I have ever had. He is loyal, devoted, follows me everywhere, happily eats the same corn, bread and lettuce every day and attacks strangers to protect me. Shit…what more could a woman ask for in a mate? My ex husband was right when he said that I loved my animals more than him. haha

I actually did just have an idiotic encounter recently with someone that claimed cats “see” with their whiskers. Being an animal nut and fairly well versed on most animal related topics I replied with ” Oh, well, they do use their whiskers as sensors to determine if they can fit through certain spaces but they don’t actually SEE with them”.
The person exclaimed ” NO! They really SEE with their whiskers.”
Ooookay….yes, you’re right, cats have hundreds of tiny eyeballs on their whiskers.

I just let the subject drop…nowhere to go from there and not worth the energy to debate. lol

@AshLeigh; Interestingly, I wrote three Haiku yesterday for a friend’s 62nd birthday, per her request.

The argument that Freud is a quack, especially from folks who have never read Freud. I think people denigrate him because they hear of his mistaken and culturally informed ideas like penis envy, but don’t also keep in mind that he came up with lots of great ideas and, really, the whole damn field of psychology. If they read him they’d realize he was a very careful, curious, empathetic, and scientific guy – and a great writer, to boot.

I don’t like hypocritical arguments. You know, when someone stands firm for women’s rights, but they don’t hesitate to call Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman or Ann Coulter the worst name they can think of.

Any argument that
• ends up comparing somebody with Hitler,
• includes the line “If you want to make an omelet, you’ve got to break some eggs,”
• lumps people together willy-nilly with “If you’re for x, then you must be against y,” whether you are or not,
• uses the Bible as an authority on matters of fact, or
• elicits the remark “Great minds think alike.”

Any argument with women…....flogging a dead horse springs to mind.

Arguments comparing socialism and America. Or arguments comparing Obama wnd the degradation of America. Obama is still an American, and his policies still reflect he is center if not center-right.

Most american politicians will be this way because that is American culture. There’s no radical leftist movement taking over, at least in the sense some conservatives are insinuating.

Using clichés rather than substance to attempt to defend a position…“flogging a dead horse” comes to mind.

@gailcalled True, but…sometimes one does need to point out that not only is the horse dead, but, it has reached an extreme state of decomposition.
A lot of people fall into the dead horse trance and fail to see when it is time to call in the glue maker. lol

^^^I see what you did…it makes a difference.

I still posit that unvarnished (speaking of clichés) clichés make lazy arguments.

Plain or Peanut.

As the question clearly asked for personal viewpoints, which I gave, the defence of such a sincere example is neither required nor necessary…now, where’s that riding crop?

Pedophiles are simply misunderstood and deserve our time and understanding.

i’ve only run in to it here but i’ve run in to it a lot

@gailcalled, I write a haiku or a tanka almost every day. Haha.

@Blondesjon You’ve heard of NAMBLA right? Disgusting.

http://www.nambla.org/

@livelaughlove21 Aaaaagh…that obscenity has been around for f—king EVER.
Hell, I am almost 53 and those freaks were advocating their insanity back in the 70’s!
I can’t believe more extremists aren’t knocking those creeps off right and left. Not that I believe in a vigilante mentality, but….wtf! lol

Arguments with my 6 year old….
if it wasn’t so annoying, I’d almost be proud of him for it.

Another one (in the form of a rant):

I am so fucking sick of Pascal’s wager. Theists and atheists alike agree that it is flawed, yet the amount of people I come across who use it as support for their beliefs or their outlook on life is astounding. It’s pathetic that live by Pascal’s wager. I never want to hear it again…! >.<