Which is a worse form of argument?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Tough one, but I'll go with option 2.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'd say option 1 just because more sensible people will end up wasting their time rebutting your position if you do that.

[Saxwsylvania]

Option 1, having to back up your argument at all is a sign of weakness; your words should speak for themselves.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

     I'd say option 1 just because more sensible people will end up wasting their time rebutting your position if you do that.

Often times though an argument can be so stupid that makes it difficult to rebuke (sort of the principle behind the so-called "Chewbacca Defense") Not making any points at all is way too easy to attack.

It is true though that 9 good points and 1 weak point is worse than just 4 or 5 good points.

[dead0man]

"your side does it too" is worse than either.

[Mint]

Tough one, but I'll go with option 2.

Were you thinking of Ben when you wrote this?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"your side does it too" is worse than either.

That'd fall under option 1, but yes that's probably one of the worst examples of it. Even worse is the "This side who you don't support and often fucking hate but are also against the side you're arguing against do it too" (Common on DU. I've started a new policy of anyone saying anything of the sort even once gets an instant ignore list add from me and will never ever be removed.)

Tough one, but I'll go with option 2.

Were you thinking of Ben when you wrote this?

He was the inspiritation yes, but the question goes beyond this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'd say option 1 just because more sensible people will end up wasting their time rebutting your position if you do that.

Often times though an argument can be so stupid that makes it difficult to rebuke (sort of the principle behind the so-called "Chewbacca Defense") Not making any points at all is way too easy to attack.

It is true though that 9 good points and 1 weak point is worse than just 4 or 5 good points.

     Also, if the person who is making the stupid arguments is excessively bull-headed, that can be problematic. Sometimes I see someone make a really weak argument, but I don't call them out on it because I know doing so will lead to an extremely protracted debate that I don't have the time or energy for.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

     I'd say option 1 just because more sensible people will end up wasting their time rebutting your position if you do that.

Often times though an argument can be so stupid that makes it difficult to rebuke (sort of the principle behind the so-called "Chewbacca Defense") Not making any points at all is way too easy to attack.

It is true though that 9 good points and 1 weak point is worse than just 4 or 5 good points.

     Also, if the person who is making the stupid arguments is excessively bull-headed, that can be problematic. Sometimes I see someone make a really weak argument, but I don't call them out on it because I know doing so will lead to an extremely protracted debate that I don't have the time or energy for.

See: My reaction to roughly 2/3 of J. J.'s posts, back when he still posted (That number started out at around 0% though and gradually climbed during the election season of course. Ultimately there was no need to own him, reality would do it for you.)

[memphis]

My personal pet peeve is people who act like they have a reasoning, but then say they're too busy to fully explain/have already explained elsewhere why but refuse to proide documentation.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My personal pet peeve is people who act like they have a reasoning, but then say they're too busy to fully explain/have already explained elsewhere why but refuse to proide documentation.

In those cases, just be patient.

[Earth]

They're both obnoxious, but option 1 is worse. With option 2, either party can let the argument die, since one won't add anything substantial, but option 1 allows the argument to disintegrate into babble, and stupidity.

[Coburn In 2012]

Option 1, having to back up your argument at all is a sign of weakness; your words should speak for themselves.