Arguing graciously: How NOT to argue

It's really difficult to argue a point convincingly, especially when the person disagrees with you. I can think of a few ideas on how to handle your opponent so that they feel more inclined to agree with you, but that has to wait for a time when I don't have as much work.

It just so happens that what NOT to argue is just as fun to read. Especially when people do strange things in arguments like...

1. POINT OUT WHAT THE OTHER PERSON IS DOING

A while ago, when the Victoria's Secret thing was still on everyone's mind (Hahah! Now it spells out HARVEY MUDD ROX BOO CALTECH*,) we were mentioned by a certain Something Awful thread.

If that previous link doesn't work, it's because I don't have a Something Awful account and I am getting a big banner ad instead of the forum. All you need to know is that a dialogue took place that looked something like this:

Guy: You did that with a bot.
Mudder: We started off by isolating the captchas and building a webpage that the entire campus started particpating in by filling in captchas nonstop. It was very efficient and we got a lot of votes. Then someone made a bot that automatically fills many of the Victoria's Secret captchas and we ran that.
Guy: Yup, you're definitely using a bot.
Mudder: Here's a graph of what happened. You can see the changes in the beginning of the graph from when most people went to sleep, then a steady, non-fluctuating slope from when we started running the bot.
Guy: What's that graph? It looks just like a bot.

This doesn't look like you're using your argument effectively, it just shows that you're a little too eager to show everybody that you know what a bot is. I'm sure you all have seen great examples of this in your time, like:

Me: I like this person!
Guy: You're interested in him because you like him, aren't you?

Me: The author is doing this... (REALLY long analysis)
Guy: You're just pointing out what the author is doing.

What the cornhumping hell?

The only reason this shuts us up is because we're so confused as to why anyone would say that. What does that have to do with your point?

2. GIVE SOME CRAZY FICTIONAL PARABLE

I'm looking at you, Aesop.

Let's say you want to argue that communism is destructive, because no one has ever, ever done that before. You decide that the best way is to present an analogy that focuses on a communist society. It goes something like this:

"Once upon a time there was a communist society. Everyone was extremely unhappy because they did not have capitalism. Then everyone got so unhappy that society fell apart. Then all the communist leaders died. This is why communism is bad. The end."

Does anyone see a blatant problem with this? If the author has complete control over their fictional scenario, how does it prove anything to have the scenario crash to pieces? All it proves is the author's own opinion on the subject.

I see this a lot in science fiction writing. For a wonderful comic about this, check out Caveman Science Fiction from Dresden Codak. Great comic.

3. TREAT POLITICAL PARTIES LIKE SPORTS TEAMS

If someone's a huge fan of Mathletes or Calculicious or... I don't know many sports teams, bear with me... there's no way you're going to convince them to root for a different team just by listing good qualities. The sad thing is, I see people do this with political parties.

"WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DEMOCRATS WOOOOOOOOO WE WON"

"UGH THAT NEWSPAPER IS A LIBERAL RAG HAHA ALL LIBERALS ARE GAY THEY SUCK"

Seriously, I swear that the media could label an extremely liberal dude as a Republican conservative and most people wouldn't tell the difference. Oh! Or if the person had no views in common with the "conservative" team of the U.S.A., except that abortion should be illegal. This isn't so much the media -whatever the media is- labeling candidates as such as it is people interpreting the labels instead of the views themselves.

How about this? Lol! It's funny because our team lost, but the other team sucks! I could say the same for the person with the Ginny avatar. You call that defending?

4. USE THEMSELVES AS AN EXAMPLE FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

I'm sure we've all heard this one.

PERSON 1: I don't think people should use 'retarded' as an insult. It's degrading.
PERSON 2: Why? I've never used the word 'retarded' as an insult.

There are a couple problems with this. First, your actions probably don't apply to everyone else in the world, especially if it's in a context that someone has to argue over. Second, it sounds a bit condescending. In order to sway someone to your side, you should probably be connecting with them. Even in a non-argumentative context, it sounds kind of suspect:

PERSON 1: I don't really want to go on the rollercoaster.
PERSON 2: Why? I've been on the rollercoaster, and I didn't think it was scary.

Why not replace it with something neutral, like:

PERSON 1: I don't really want to go on the rollercoaster.
PERSON 2: Are you sure? It doesn't look that bad.

Much, much better. Person 1 will be so much happier now.

5. ASSUME THAT BECAUSE SOMEONE WON, THEIR ARGUMENT IS RIGHT

This one is self-explanatory. I could give an example, but the only one I can think of pits evolutionism against creationism, and I don't want to get mobbed in religious debate.

Ok, fine. Let's say a professor is arguing against a student in a philosophical argument that neither can prove. For the sake of argument, assume that the professor knows how to argue better. Does knowing how to argue better mean that the professor's ideas are correct? On the other hand, does being the underdog mean the student's ideas are correct?

Ideas are ideas, and it's fun for some people to debate, but this assumption can sometimes end in disaster. Come to your own conclusions based on facts, not debates. (Unless the conclusions are about one of the people debating.)

Anything else? Any funny debate stories?
*DISCLAIMER: I do not hate CalTech.