What bugs me the most from arguments

[Scowling Dragon]

What bugs me most from online video arguments (Stuff like the bigger picture, or Occasionally Extra Credits) is when not enough research is done when arguing a stance regarding the counter-arguments. So as a result they argue not against the argument that the opposition presented, but against a halfway thought out argument that they made up for themselves instead of the actual one, and then get surprised how stupid the argument was.

The most egregious example of this is probably The Game Overthinker in his Metroid other M review (Outside of generally not thinking things through) did something on the level of inception when it comes down to poorly thinking about the oppositions arguments.

So he defined a term he was using, incorectly, whilst correctly using it.

In 6:22 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc4h8hNYev0) in this video he used a strawman to describe his oppositions arguments. But what he thought strawman meant was "To repeat over-used arguments from the web". This is incorrect. As strawman means to create a fake opposition. An opposition you can defeat as they usually don't argue the full argument/ are made to look stupid and shortsighted. But as a result he ended up using the term Strawman correctly as that was exactly what he did: He used halfway understood arguments from the opposition, and set them up to make them look stupid and shortsighted.

It just bugs me so much when this is done. Its one thing to argue your argument, but I bloody hate it when they create their own counter-argument so that they can laugh and point at it.

[snoopy13a]

The most egregious example of this is probably The Game Overthinker in his Metroid other M review (Outside of generally not thinking things through) did something on the level of inception when it comes down to poorly thinking about the oppositions arguments.



The irony of "The Game Overthinker" not thinking things through. :smallsmile:

Addressing potential counter-arguments is a key aspect of preventing an argument. Of course, if you mischaracterize the opposition's arguments, then you run the risk of alienating your audience

[Tyndmyr]

It just bugs me so much when this is done. Its one thing to argue your argument, but I bloody hate it when they create their own counter-argument so that they can laugh and point at it.

I've got bad news for you...it's pretty damned common.

Its to be avoided sure, but seriously, it's the internet. People will gleefully post the strangest crap out there. No point getting bent out of shape over every terrible thing out there.

[Scowling Dragon]

Addressing potential counter-arguments is a key aspect of preventing an argument. Of course, if you mischaracterize the opposition's arguments, then you run the risk of alienating your audience

That is a big problem. Every time I have wanted to make an online video my script always concludes with "So in the end it mostly comes down to gut feeling and personal philosphy"

[Anxe]

Your argument doesn't address counter-arguments to itself does it? Or is it just a rant? Did I at least make something implode?

[Scowling Dragon]

Well the counter argument to the counter argument would be the argument itself.

[Karoht]

That is a big problem. Every time I have wanted to make an online video my script always concludes with "So in the end it mostly comes down to gut feeling and personal philosphy"

...and the problem with ending on such a note is?

No really, as long as your sum up came before that, or you (incredibly briefly) repeat some or all of your major points, there really isn't an issue with having an open-ended ending. It basically means you aren't trying to ram a conclusion down someone's throat and letting the viewer come to their own conclusions.

At worst, people might call you wishy washy.
Or, they might call you the most unheard of remark on the internets.
Open. Minded.
OH. EM. GEE.

[Maryring]

...and the problem with ending on such a note is?

No really, as long as your sum up came before that, or you (incredibly briefly) repeat some or all of your major points, there really isn't an issue with having an open-ended ending. It basically means you aren't trying to ram a conclusion down someone's throat and letting the viewer come to their own conclusions.

At worst, people might call you wishy washy.
Or, they might call you the most unheard of remark on the internets.
Open. Minded.
OH. EM. GEE.

The problem is "why read something if it has no conclusion?" If I peruse something, I want there to be some substance and meaning to what I'm reading. If at the end the work can be summarized as "but really, do whatever cuz I don't have any solid arguments for my stance", then I'll feel that my time has been wasted. If you can't justify your stance, if you don't really have any conviction at all, then the arguments themselves are meaningless. If you can't rely on your own logic, how am I supposed to have any faith in your logic at all?

[Karoht]

The problem is "why read something if it has no conclusion?" If I peruse something, I want there to be some substance and meaning to what I'm reading. If at the end the work can be summarized as "but really, do whatever cuz I don't have any solid arguments for my stance", then I'll feel that my time has been wasted. If you can't justify your stance, if you don't really have any conviction at all, then the arguments themselves are meaningless.
If I'm going to put out any kind of video, it is to educate, not force a conclusion down someone's throat. Sure, I'll draw a conclusion, but all I'm really saying is, "this is the conclussion I drew, given my exposure to the information I just showed you." The qualifier of 'by all means, form your own' doesn't invalidate my position. Especially if the entire premise is to show you the information in the first place.

-Here's the point I'm trying to make
-Supporting arguement/source
-Supporting arguement/source
-Supporting arguement/source
-Recap of the point I'm trying to make
-Draw your own conclusions, but here's the one/s I came to, and now you know why.



If you can't rely on your own logic, how am I supposed to have any faith in your logic at all?
You aren't. You're encouraged to draw your own conclussions. You're supposed to view the sources and have faith in their integrity. At best, if you can empathize with my position (not necessarily agree with it) or understand how I came to hold that position (even if my position is completely backwards and wrong, which is always a posibility), that's all I'm trying to do. If I get you viewing the arguements/sources (the bulk of the video), then it gets you thinking about those arguements/sources. Maybe my sources are incomplete or not in depth enough. Maybe my sources are completely backwards. If you watch my video, and then go and find a source that counters my conclusion or indicates that I've reached my conclusion on incomplete data, excellent. I look like a twit for 5 seconds, but now my picture is more complete than it was.

My two cents:
Anything designed to educate should work that way. Especially if it is trying to foster a dialogue. I don't view videos from sources such as Extra Credits as a standalone video or a closed arguement, but rather as a portion of a larger dialogue.