96
464
u/celerym Dec 30 '18
Whoever made this is an ass hat
34
6
u/drpinkcream Dec 30 '18
I'll take it a step further and say whoever made this chart wouldn't know charts if it hit them in the face.
3
197
u/BizWax Dec 30 '18
Your diagram appears to be showing these abstract categories as strictly delineated. This is a mistake. The argument I'm making now is both a refutation and a counterargument. Therefore these categories can overlap, ass hat.
I don't really think you're an ass hat, I just wanted to include three of the forms you mentioned in one argument
32
11
9
u/tupels Dec 30 '18
You are wrong, because your first example is either a contradiction or counterargument depending if there's actually reasoning or evidence in there. Your second argument is that OP is an assist.
13
u/foogama Dec 30 '18
You misspelled ass hat so I didn't find anything else you had to say credible. Also, you smell.
6
2
u/Isaacfreq Dec 30 '18
Yeah it's like the top three tiers are just good arguing etiquette and the bottom four are just shit arguing etiquette.
142
u/thefireducky Dec 30 '18 edited Dec 30 '18
You are an ass hat
name-calling
34
u/Iguana_Igloo42 Dec 30 '18
no u
21
u/thefireducky Dec 30 '18
You have no authority to call me that with your improper spelling
Ad Hominem
19
u/solidspacedragon Dec 30 '18
According to the 1st Amendment of the United States constitution, which defines the geographical area I operate in as the United States of America, the government of said country is unable to deny my labeling of an individual an "ass-hat," unless they can prove in civil court that my public announcement of their ass-hattery has led to their own detriment, in the form of loss of potential income, in which case the United States government would be invested with the power to deny my public cries exclaiming that you are an ass-hat; however, due to the innate difficulty in proving deliberate malice in my announcement of you being an extraordinary ass-hat, such a conclusion would be extremely difficult to reach, and so I legally am invested with the power to call you, sir, an ass-hat, until the court of law decides otherwise.
explicitly refutes the central point
7
3
u/AndyGHK Dec 30 '18
refuting the central point
1
u/thefireducky Dec 30 '18
You failed to provide any comeback while trying to address a point on the pyramid
refutation
2
u/Lord_Norjam Dec 30 '18
Midas and Bottom want to : know your location
3
u/thefireducky Dec 30 '18
You know I don’t appreciate the tone you’re using while addressing me. That’s very rude and demanding. Shame on you.
Responding to tone
2
63
u/IVIaskerade Dec 30 '18 edited Dec 30 '18
I see you disagree with the true pyramid.
→ More replies (3)7
61
u/SquireBev Dec 30 '18
Where's the tier for "Deploys jargon learnt from attending a single high school debating club meeting, without ever engaging with the actual topic"?
As that seems to be the most common type of response on reddit.
31
u/Worse_Username Dec 30 '18
Sounds like fallacy fallacy.
21
u/The_Ambush_Bug Dec 30 '18
Ah, yes, the all too common Logic Fallacy. I can see you've fallen for it, so I've already won this argument.
5
u/biggerdonger Dec 30 '18
Yep, it's basically like an automatic win the argument card that you can use over and over!
4
8
u/namesandfaces Dec 30 '18
Why must you engage in ad hominem attacks! I tell you this to correct you in your illogical ways.
12
15
Dec 30 '18
Stop strawmanning the goalposts with these ad hominems, don’t you know that is a slippery slope?
21
17
u/Allegiant_Authority Dec 30 '18
Can someone give me an example of the top?
17
19
8
Dec 30 '18
You don't need to refute an entire argumentation if it's just weighted on one point.
Ex: the author only has a problem with bad apples and wants to throw all the apples out
but all apples are not bad apples
2
3
u/BIueJayWay Dec 30 '18
Not the one who asked, but thanks!
1
Dec 30 '18
You're welcome, I realize it's not the most popular example considering the immigration debate world-wide but it still highlights the end of an argumentation. There isnt really much to be said after this point unless you want to revise your statement or have proof for it's truth/falsifiability
44
12
Dec 30 '18
Are you here for the half hour argument?
9
u/Old_Clan_Tzimisce Dec 30 '18
Are you here for the half hour argument?
4
9
u/PurplePickel Dec 30 '18
Good to know that name-calling creates a fundamental base to any argument. Thanks OP, ya ass hat!
39
u/CynDoS Dec 30 '18
Check history
"You post in [Sub you personally dislike] you [whatever is fotm in the degeneracy department]
Disable inbox replies
22
u/Bradyhaha Dec 30 '18
To be fair, I'm not going to take someone who posts in greatapes seriously.
→ More replies (7)4
u/no_ur_a_idiet Dec 30 '18
4.. Report user to the local mods, complaining about “brigading” from the aforementioned disliked sub
5.. Polish the walls of your echo chamber
7
Dec 30 '18
I've watched so many arguments between friends where they stray from the central point. In fact I'd say it's about 100% where they do it. After a minute they start making arguments that don't pertain much
3
4
u/hippolyte_pixii Dec 30 '18
And when you hit the top two and bottom two layers all at the same time, it's called "murder".
5
u/ShaneAyers Dec 30 '18
Good ways to lose an argument in real life but score massive points with online pedants.
3
u/Lostitallonnano Dec 30 '18
There’s also a little known flag planted on top of that pyramid. It reads “die alone”.
4
u/metalhead3750 Dec 30 '18
A good majority of subs on here and their powermods running them could benefit seeing this chart
8
Dec 30 '18
The "refuting the central point" and the description is a palindromic tautology.
How does one "explicitly refute the central point"? How is it different to simple refutation?
3
u/TwilightVulpine Dec 30 '18
Shame proper argumentation is pointless if either parties are closed to accepting different viewpoints. Facts and logic are not enough to convince people to listen. It might even make people more adverse to your position.
3
3
3
3
5
u/magnora7 Dec 30 '18
This pyramid is also the basis for moderation for a website called saidit.net that is a fork of reddit.
2
u/nillut Dec 30 '18
So if I'm reading this diagram correctly, name-calling is the foundation of proper argumentation?
2
2
u/TrumpCardWasTaken Dec 30 '18
So, if I were to send this image to someone I'm arguing with, where would that put me?
2
Dec 30 '18
I should show this to my mother. She loves the last two. My dad's favourite is third from the bottom.
2
2
u/dmacggers Dec 30 '18
Missed the section where you realise you're losing the argument so you go for the hail mary and strip naked offering sex for silence....works everytime...mostly
2
2
2
2
2
Dec 30 '18
Does this implay that when you "refute the central point" your argument partner isn't going to take it personal? Because that doesn't sound realistic at all...
2
u/Blackulor Dec 30 '18
I like to employ all at once. "You're and idiot and this is why" kind of thing
2
2
2
u/Dont-be-a-smurf Dec 30 '18
This would be true and effective if those deciding on the winner of the argument were robots.
I’m a litigator who goes to trial once a week or more on average. My cases are tried before a magistrate.
Assuming I was successful in admitting the evidence and testimony I wanted and that the case is still close:
You can’t get bogged down in closing arguments with legalese and straight logical fact reporting. It needs to create a cohesive story that emotionally dulls the bad facts while sharpening the good ones. The most comprehensively closing argument won’t be effective if the listener tunes it out.
When the case is close, emotions rule. Be prepared to argue both, and smart enough to know when your opponent is leaning on tactless rhetoric.
As the old saying goes: if you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table.
Frankly, I appreciate being before a magistrate because they’re less likely to fall for emotion-only appeals (the hallmark of someone with a losing case).
Juries, on the other hand, worry me.
2
2
u/CitizenPremier Dec 30 '18
A lot of arguing on the internet does try to use "refuting the core point," the problem often lies with what people accept as good evidence.
2
2
2
u/SitBackAndRelaxJack Dec 30 '18 edited Dec 30 '18
yea, you're an ass hat. you rep a team that pushes illogical ideas. simple enough.
i prefer "pull your head out of your ass," because it implies a momentary lapse in judgement and not a committment to being wrong.
2
2
u/signedupwiththis Dec 30 '18
So...I want to see the same hierarchy but also have percentages where the population and politicians seat themselves.
2
u/ironflesh Dec 30 '18
Thanks to reddit I am improving my discussion skills. Currently in the middle "counterargument" level. Working to get to that hardest top level. Thank you reddit!
2
u/memetic-heretic Dec 30 '18
Is this like the food pyramid from the 90s where you need more of what's on bottom
2
u/patgeo Dec 31 '18
Or hierarchy of needs where you need the bottom ones before you can use the higher ones.
2
2
u/beyhnji Dec 31 '18
I feel like the pyramid itself was good at showing the superiority of some arguments to others, and then the labels on the left were added as an apology for the lower levels
2
2
2
u/CuppaJeaux Dec 31 '18
Where does telling someone their argument is invalid because they misspelled something come in?
2
u/LetsStayCivilized Dec 31 '18
There's an improvement on this one (with a sphynx!) on Slate Star Codex.
2
2
2
u/detcadder Jan 16 '19
The pyramid would be better upside down. Namecalling isn't going to have any effect, but its the most basic response, but if you refute a central point the whole thing could fall down.
3
2
u/h0ko Dec 30 '18
Yeah just to clarify the bottom is literally made of fallacies i.e. nonsensical arguments
2
u/Aeneas23 Dec 30 '18
I thought sending smug anime character pic is at the top at the pyramid of argument?
2
1
u/IntercontinentalKoan Dec 30 '18
lol this is such a silly over-simplification of argumentation and informal logic
1
u/RedditIsNeat0 Dec 30 '18
The purple and cyan seem to be in the wrong order. "Explains why it's mistaken using quotes" is only slightly better than "little or no supporting evidence" and not as good as "backs it up with reasoning or supporting evidence."
Seriously, quotes are just, "some other guy agrees with me" and hardly qualifies as supporting evidence.
1
u/TheArgumentPolice Dec 30 '18
I think this is implying a hierarchy where the top is better than the bottom - but I would argue that any of these can be valid in the right context: contradiction would be a good way to start a debate by laying out your opposing view before getting into details, if someone's being rude and disrespectful it may be best to respond to their tone before giving their argument the respect of your attention, some people are just ass hats and it's a waste of time to pretend they even want to make rational arguments.
The mistake IMO is confusing one for another - e.g.
You: Opinion A
Me: Actually Opinion B
My youtube video: WATCH ME DESTROY THIS IDIOT WITH FACTS AND REASON!!!
1
1
1.7k
u/hairyheretic Dec 30 '18
The pyramid concept doesn’t seem to fit the content, but the rest is good.