Flame Warriors ~ View topic

Guest

While it is always useful to have a warrior who knows the proper rules of debate, Argumentum muddies the water by refusing to make his logical arguments in plain English. Rather, he constantly gives the obscure Latin terms for all the perceived logic mistakes around him.

For example, whereas a normal person might respond to an argument like this:

"Might doesn't make right."

Argumentum will say:

"That is an argumentum ad baculum logical fallacy; please restate your premise."

While Argumentum will initially refuse to define all these long Latin phrases, insisting that "any intelligent debater" ought to know them by heart, eventually he will bend to his colleague's demands and give a few definitions. More often, however, he pull a LINKER and simply provide a link to the site of the nearest philosophy deptartment, then insist other warriors do a little studying.

While easily mistaken for PLITHY PHRASE or BLOWHARD, Argumentum does have some valuable lessons for less logical warriors. Nonetheless, he earns the emnity of PHILOSOPHER, who often insists that complex ideas be reduced to everyday language for the masses.

Beware - IMPOSTER may easily take on the guise of Argumentum. In this case, watch out - unless you have a Latin dictionary, they might start making up their own laws.

Nice suggestion, but you are going to have to define the warrior how it differs from Profundus Maximus a bit more. I think I know the sort of warrior you mean. I see them as a sub group of Profundus Maximus, but these guys really do have tickets on themselves, as some sort of Expert Debater.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

I think this is more of a hardcore debator. They live by the rules of debate and expect everyone else to do so as well. This tends to give them a rude awakening when they try debating online. Reasonable ones will realise they need to be clearer about what logical fallicies are, while the rule nazis will just expect everyone to break out an English rule book or Google the terms.

Profundus Maximus uses a haughty vocabulary to bluff his way out of people noticing his argument is hollow. Argumentum's use of Latin is only siting the names of real debate rules. Quite frankly, ad homenum and argument to ignorance are so common to the internet I'm surprised there aren't journal sites named for them.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List

I agree they do know debating, but still, they arrive completely out of place, but will not give up this "higher ground".

I presently peg them as a sub group of Profundus Maximus, as they arrive and feel they need to use overly large terms, in place of english ones. As they know english, I fell they do this for the same reason Profundus Maximus does. A couple of latin terms fair enough, but there is a limit. It would be the same in a tech help forum, if someone turned up and wanted to use hi-tech jargon in general discussion, in place of more common terms. Knowing the jargon, doesn't replace knowing.

I've never personally struck an expert/hardcore debater ( Argumentum is a cool label BTW) on a forum. However I have noted, that some members will purposely move away from their norm and delclare themselves as just "hicks" or the like.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

The big difference here isn't what they do, but why they do it. Argumentum isn't speaking Latin, so much as siting the names of rules. It's debate lingo, not an attempt to confuse people. I used to be a hardcore debator. Once I hit the internet, I had the good sense to drop the Latin. Not every debator realises that the point of using any language is to communicate, and therefor purposely remaining unclear makes the act of speaking pointless. Those are the people Argumentum represents.

When you debate, throwing out, "You've committed an argument to ignorance." is convenient. You don't have to explain the concept of proving a negative being nearly impossible. You don't have to go into the finer details of the premise of debating, and that it is up to you to prove your side, not to prove the other side can't disprove your side. I know that was a double-negative; an argument to ignorance is the logical version of a double negative. Some people get spoiled on having three words that explain all that and expect other people to research the meaning.

Now, Argumentum may or may not be able to debate. It's an unwillingness to explain problems with people's responces in plain English that marks them. Profundus uses complicated terms, obscure words, and foreign languages to hide the fact he has nothing to back up his arguments.

In summary...
Argumentum: Probably good debator. Requires arm-twisting to translate what the hell he's saying his problem with your argument is.

Profundus Maximus: Complete failure at debating. Hides the hollowness of his argument by encrypting it in obscure language.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List

Clearly Argumentum is a debater. However, they are not so willing to explain their angle. To the average Joe, they look like a Profundus Maximus, which is why I grouped them in there. I'm not saying this warrior should not be developed, quite the opposite.

The point is, online, you are dealing with a broard range of people. I understand, someone might like to use terms which are easy for them to use. However, people, such as yourself, understand that using that language in some forums, will not be at all, welcomed. So you use clear plain english. Usually there is no one right wrong in a lot of arguements I've seen. Just saying "you have condraticed yourself" will usually not suffice, you'll need to point out where. It's the same if one side points out I can't prove my position, they need to point out where. The same is said if they claim I can't disprove their position, they need to point out why. If not, it sounds hollow.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

How closely do we want to differentiate types here? There are all kinds of colours to the forum types, but do we really need to define them narrowly, or do we want to have a little loosness in the corners, which would be my prefernce. You can't categorize everyone, or Mike's hand's gonna get real tired.
_________________
The Average Woman Would Rather Have Beauty Than Brains Because The Average Man Can See Better Than He Can Think

Argumentum only pulls out the Latin when complaining about a perceived error from an opponent. Profundus relies (and dishes out) obscurity from the beginning and on.

I agree with you about determining the differences between people, however. It's sometimes hard to distinguish what type of Flame Warrior someone is until after several posts. For example, can you really tell the difference between a Tireless Rebutter and a Philosopher without extended observation? The tactics and mentality are quite similar. The key difference is that my kind tend to stay grounded while Philosophers wax abstraction and greater concepts. We want you to understand what we're saying; Philosophers want you to think about what they're saying.

I love philosophy and envy the Philosopher, but my desire to be understood when I argue outweighs my desire to educate.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List

OK, it strikes me as a difficulty for the roster when we differentiate too closely is all. The broader the type, the more readily it can be recognized.
_________________
The Average Woman Would Rather Have Beauty Than Brains Because The Average Man Can See Better Than He Can Think

Damn. I agree with both of you (FS and tuna), but I know exactly what type of person Akira's describing. It's definitely its own Warrior.

Maybe this should be rewritten. Focus on the Warrior's anal-retentive adherence to debate rules. An unwillingness to accept that people would carry on in the anarchistic manner that nearly 100% of the internet uses. Then follow up with throwing out Latin rule-names and grudgingly decyphering. Lastly, tack on the existing description.

I personally think the description is fine the way it is, but I suspect it may just be from nearly being one...
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List

Yea, I know him too - maybe a bit more emphasis on the fact this guy's the real McCoy - he does understand the Latin he's quoting, etc.?
_________________
The Average Woman Would Rather Have Beauty Than Brains Because The Average Man Can See Better Than He Can Think

Guest

Everyone here seems to know more about Argumentum that I do...and most definetely a more positive attitude towards him.

The ones I have encountered usually act aristocratic (but are not Royalty). They are hardcore debaters - true - but are usually also arrogant and out of place. In fact, they usually point out the fact that they were on the high school debate team or something like that.

I have a negative opinion of Argumentum because:

1 - Any intelligent person who debates online ought to realize the people around them aren't that erudite, and adapt accordingly.

2 - There are forums where an Argumentum would be welcome, simply because it's an intelligent forum with intelligent people. In other words, Argumentums are best when they group together and only debate each other. But when you're on a political board that shares space with an anime board, using Latin makes you look snooty.

Argumentum is closest to Philosopher - as someone pointed out, they actually know something, unlike Profundus. However, Philosophers I've seen (and I consider myself like one) like to speak in everyday language.

Argumententum's like some Oxford-educated graduate who suddenly finds himself in a barroom argument, and refuses to (and may be unable to) fit in with everyone else.

Not all Warriors are completely bad. Some are. Argumentum, though, is broad enough to include the misguided contributer who doesn't realise others are unfamiliar with debate format. They're aggrivating because they don't understand why people would argue in a disorganized manner, and may even try to teach people to debate. It's not that we're positive about them, it's just they're at the shallow end of this behavior.

You've mainly covered the negative spectrum with the pompous, rule-worshipping psychotics who expect everything in formal presentation. I don't think anyone is positive about them.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List

I think the Argumentum I am speaking of really belongs in the "clueless" category, along with Grammarian and Nitpick - they simply do not understand why people get angry at them, when they're really only trying to help you improve yourself.
_________________
The Average Woman Would Rather Have Beauty Than Brains Because The Average Man Can See Better Than He Can Think

To put it they way I see most of them.

Consider a team of builders working out in the remote wilderness, putting up a shack. Every one is happy enough to work with hand powered tools. Its a bit harder, but they don't mind as it is easy on the ears, they can talk, relax when they want and they have always worked like that.

Along comes expert builder. He has buzz saws, electric planners, you name it. As he is the expert, he tries to be the foreman, cause, well, he is an expert, that is the postition he most qualified for. He expects they should be using power tools. He expected power to be on site. Needless to say, he expects something done about it, as his cordless tools will need charging up shortly. He wants to see a more professional work ethic. In some situations, if there is a very small generator there, he expects it to meet all power demands, rather than the intermittent work it was designed to do.

On top of that, he cant understand that exactly why they are building the shack in a certin way. The more he carries on, the more everyone else can see that he is somewhat inept, if not clueless, to the reasons behind the shack's design.

Hope thats a clearer example of the types I noted.

A good debater. In a debate situation, fine. However they do wander out into pastures, that look interesting, but they don't necessarily understand all the finer points. They go into some battles with hardly any working knowledge, but rely heavily on quoting what type an arguement is, rather than back it up with facts. Its in that respect, I see the warrior as a relation or sibling of Profundus Maximus.

However irritus suggestion above is excelent, as it would cover all debaters, those who stick to what they know about, and those who have wandered to an area, they think they know something about.

irritus said. " Focus on the Warrior's anal-retentive adherence to debate rules. An unwillingness to accept that people would carry on in the anarchistic manner that nearly 100% of the internet uses. Then follow up with throwing out Latin rule-names and grudgingly decyphering. Lastly, tack on the existing description."
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

I think irritus is right on the warrior aspect, but the anaolgy Fence made's pretty good. Although on occasion you will fine someone who really does know what they're doing.
_________________
The Average Woman Would Rather Have Beauty Than Brains Because The Average Man Can See Better Than He Can Think

There always is that one guy trying to enforce a set of civil debate rules in a forum where they should know better than to even try

Or someone who won't follow the established rules of a forum because "they don't make us do that over at so-and-so's board"

Ahh. I should point out, those are the majority of types I have seen. I didn't mean to infer, all were like that. Sorry about not making that clearer. No doubt, in more formal forums, like hardcore political forums, these guys would be able to strut their stuff. I don't visit those sort of forums, as they hold little interest for me.

At times they might actually know something about the subject at hand, but irritus has that summed up very well, well I thought so.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

Guest

In that case, I'd suggest you add something to this to focus on the fact he will immediately revert to the initial obscurity at the start of any other thread. Differentiate between him and a formal debator who'll permanently adjust his behavior for a forum, in other words.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List

As with most warriors, their scope can be wide. Just with Grammarian, there are a few types ranging from sensible to "clueless".

Its just my opinion, but Argumentum could easily range, from sensible to "clueless". The "clueless" variety are just prone to turning up in places where they are not so welcome.
I'll restate, I prefer that the Argumentum suggestion, follow along the lines, of what irritus suggested earlier. I'd add, make a broad Argumentum description, to include those who use it (debating principals) when and where appropriately, those who really believe everyone who argues would have to understand the principals, and those who visit forums outside their scope, and use it hammer their somwhat, ill informed opinion, home. Then outline the sub type commonly seen - which is a proper debater, who wants the forum to adopt proper debating.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence