AIBU to want to a supernatural entity to enforce rulings on spurious argumentative techniques?

[WalkingOnTheCracks]

It drives me mad when people say something in a debate or argument that makes no sense, or that blocks progress, or that just derails the entire thing - and one has no way of, as it were, deeming their strategy unacceptable.

For instance, "well, I don't know about that."

Them: <bunch of ill-founded nonsense, some of which they've heard somewhere and a lot of which they just made up>

Me: <Fact one, cited. Fact two, demonstrated. Fact three, logically derived from facts one and two and independently supported by numerous subject-matter authorities>

Them: Well, I don't know about that. I'm just saying that that's what happened to my cousin and she hasn't had a moment's peace.

At this point, I want an otherworldly spirit to appear, preferably taking the apparent form of Miriam Margolyes, and say, "No, you don't know about that, do you? But you've just been told about it. So now you have to take that on, and incorporate it into your worldview. Otherwise you're a self-deluding fuckwit, aren't you? Thank you. Continue."

So, what other argumentative phrases or positions would trigger the apparition of Miriam?

Strawmanning

And the worst offender of all - straight up just ignoring valid arguments you cant counter

I'd love to see intelligent people invited to have intelligent discussions in the media - intelligent balance - rather than flat-earth, vaccine-anxious pop up on every Google search frightening people... The weight of crazy out there looks the same to some people as actual science (which they don't seem too sceptical about when they need it...) but skews their views...

Another meme to make you smile xx

Miriam might have a finger to wag here...

"You may not know anything about the issue, but I bet you reckon something."

Argument by assertion is annoying.

Argument based on an invalid or incorrect assumption is as well.

However, I particularly hate any variation of "well I am entitled to my opinion". First, you know what they say about opinions. Second, we aren't discussing whether you're entitled to your opinion. Third, if the only thing you can say in defence of your opinion is that it's not illegal to hold it, it is probably a shit opinion.

Of course, everyone is entitled to MY opinion.

Also, it's not a debating strategy as such because it's devoid of any substance, but there was an annoying poster the other week who countered everything with some faux-astonished version of "how very strange of you". I am absolutely convinced it was Dolores Umbridge. I was really getting the "hem hem", girlish affectation vibes.

Nah, that’s wrong.Ask anyone

I'd just be happy with said supernatural entity to smite every single person who pulls a face at the thought of useful medication and then informs me that

a) Arthritis is what you get when you're old
b) The other autoimmune diseases are nothing to do with the one autoimmune disease and as such, nothing can be done
c) All I have to do is, like their Aunt's sister's cousin's nephew's hairdresser's dog's brother's sitter's next door but 3 neighbour from 15 years ago and

i. cut major food groups for no reason other than somebody made zillions from books telling you to (and if you look for more than thirty seconds, you'll find literally every food group in the world and water have all been blamed for causing it)
ii. get some exercise
iii. think positively
iv. trust in Jesus and you will be healed
v. consume acid (apple cider vinegar) to alkalise the body (a positive plus a positive is NOT a negative, even before you get to the little point that if this actually worked you would be DEAD, you reprehensible fuckwit)
vii. juice fast
viii. consider that it could be all in your mind
ix. remove images of particular animals from the house
x. pretend it's not happening and it'll disappear like magic

d) this, of course, all stems from being vaccinated as a child

I was going to say YANBU, but then I read @UWhatNow 's post, and... you know what? She has a point. It may3b depends a bit on the context and how serious the question is and how many glasses of wine you've had but yeah I reckon maybe it's ok to just 'reckon things' sometimes .

I don't know about that.

Actually, I was very prepared to side with you OP, I hate spurious argument techniques. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine really, I have always been a bit anal about reasoning anal did philosophy at university which didn't diminish that.

But I didn't really like your example. The reason is that I think if you want to have discussions like that with people in a regular everyday kind of setting, you have to be prepared for the fact that they are not going to present what they say as if they are writing some kind of point by point pamphlet. They will probably use everyday language and their arguments may not be well presented or precise.

But that is not the same as not having an argument.

For example, in your example above I would say the person is making an argument from evidence. He is not commenting on the logic of your argument, or the scientific evidence you presented. That is a perfectly valid argument and depending on the subject may also be a very powerful argument. (I would also say, that over the course of my lifetime, I've found more than once that when I dismissed someone's experience for my theoretical or even scientific argument, I ended up, sometimes years later, being in the wrong.)

So while I am prepared to agree that God should strike down or in some way embarrass publicly those who carelessly employ bad reasoning, and especially statistical idiocy, and sophistry, I think you need also to be prepared to listen to what other people say carefully and attempt to put their arguments in the best form, because many people who have worthwhile things to say may not express them in quite the way you'd prefer.