AIBU to expect people to have actual facts when they argue a point?

[goldenquestion]

Honestly, I don’t mind a difference of opinion — debate is healthy. But I’m finding more and more that people will argue something confidently with zero evidence or any real idea what they’re talking about. Then when you ask for sources or challenge it, they either go quiet or get defensive.

AIBU to think if you’re going to push a strong opinion (especially on serious topics), you should at least have something to back it up? Or am I just expecting too much from the internet?

Ah you're that sort of person. Let's try again.

"I have a £1 coin, it's worth £1"

"It's a £2 coin"

Good luck buying something that costs £1.99 with it

Well you just argued that the sky is blue.
Sometimes it’s blue, sometimes it’s not.
Stop with your entitlement 😂

I just sit back and watch the show 😆

Of course they can argue it. Freedom of speech and all that. Whether you choose to engage is up to you though.

Good luck getting a pound for it in the depths of the Amazon.

Im not ‘that sort of person’ if you mean a belligerent fool. I’m just pointing out some pretty serious flaws in your rather aggressive argument.

I think it depends. If their view is “generally, formula milk is nutritionally more beneficial than breastmilk to a newborn baby” or “you can change sex” then they should produce a source for that as it’s counter to established fact. But there’s no point arguing anyway because they clearly aren’t interested in fact and won’t be able to source it.

If their view is “the military regime in Israel is bad” then that’s an opinion that may have been formed over years of various headlines, the news at 10 etc and they don’t need to find a peer reviewed paper to evidence that. It’s just a belief.

I generally find that when people on here ask for evidence or sources it’s so they can tell you it’s a load of shit even if it is a peer reviewed paper, because they can find one to say the opposite.

I was on a thread about the heatwave and someone said it's normal not climate change blah blah. Someone replied that it's the hottest June ever or similar and the other person was like "I don't care about stats, it's not that deep, it's just weather". There's a lot of very stupid people about. Everyone makes mistakes and can be wrong about something but the doubling down & deflecting isn't healthy.

Many people argue on an emotional, rather than a logical basis. On the recent post about someone snooping on their partner’s phone, posters decided it shouldn’t be illegal, and therefore wasn’t, despite evidence to the contrary.

“The sky is blue” is actually a perfect example of what @Swiftie1878 was trying to say.

If you zoom in on a specific point “the sky is blue right now” it may be a fact, but the wider issue of whether or not the sky is blue is much broader.

The sky is sometimes blue, and sometimes black. Sometimes it has a pink/red hue or even contains rainbows. In some parts of the world the night sky can be green.

And for some reason you can't state certain facts without people conflating that with your feelings (don't know how to verbalise). Eg I said Trump might win as he was popular in X areas. Apparently this then means I'm a Trump fan. Why? Or I said we have an ageing population and had responses like "do you want to kill old people", "old people fought in the war". I don't want to kill old people but we still have an ageing population 🤦🏻‍♀️

Teach yourself Hitchens razor. - all of a sudden you get 80% of your day back.

According to the pyramid of argument it is pretty optimistic to get any kind of fact - the bottom four rungs are all opinion, and for many people those are all the understanding of how to make an argument they have grasped.

When you get to the counter-argument level the intellectual link between facts and argument comes into play.

I think there’s a missing layer here anyway - shouting unsubstantiated ‘facts’ - often with a tenuous or unproved link to
the argument and sometimes an overlayer of insult for good measure. Much of our political discourse is shaped like this and I find it destructive and disappointing. Le sigh.

That's interesting, thanks.

I think the best retort would be "Yes, you are entitled to your opinion but so am I. And my (factually informed) opinion is that you are talking bollocks."

I do find it weird when people are confidently wrong about things that are quite easy to look up. I am a lawyer and see this a lot on threads about legal issues.
There is also a weird folk belief on mumsnet in the infallible fairness and efficacy of insurance. Any issue relating to travel or weddings will have 50 posts under it saying "surely you have insurance OP" often about uninsurable matters.

ETA: Although conversely mumsnet also believes that insurance is very fragile. I have seen people claim a messy (step)child's bedroom would invalidate insurance. Also leaving your teens if you go on holiday. See also having an extra person in a hotel room or lying about your child's age to a theme park.

There's nothing wrong with arguing a point of view when not in posession of factual evidence, as long as it's done honestly, with an open mind and a willingness to be be proved either right or wrong. That's a really good way of learning.
Problems only start when people get nasty and personal, with the intention of visiting humiliation on the 'loser'. There is no need and no point.

Personally, I'm usually happy to be wrong about things, as long as I learn something.

Pretending to actually 'know' things on the basis of next to nothing is poor form, however.

Did you catch the recent thread on "plonker". Poster after poster insisting they were right even after several other posters (myself included) posted dictionary definitions.

It was the MN equivalent of Boris Johnson telling that man "there are no cameras here" in front of an uncountable number of press photographers.

Totally agree, but some arguments are based on facts and are opinion such as liking marmite for example. I think it’s the approach some take when you don’t agree with them that you are wrong rather than having an opinion that doesn’t agree with them .

Even ‘the sky is blue right now’ only withstands the truth test for the person standing under that sky in that place. If they were in, say, Australia it perhaps wouldn’t be true.

Totally agree, but some arguments are based on facts and are opinion

My bugbear is people dressing up their argument as somehow factual when it's really moral, ethical, spiritual or just base prejudice. Because then you are stupid and dishonest.

@Kuretake yes about the insurance! They assume it's really easy to get too!

I've recently been told I'm "functionally illiterate" by one of those.

And if you are colour blind ?

As a rule you need to be a little wary of personal experience. Because there is no such thing as objective, and the second last thing you can trust in your engagement with the universes is your senses.

I didn't but can absolutely picture it - yes exactly this sort of thing. I also once had a disagreement on here about whether or not you are allowed to stop and unload on double yellow lines. Despite it being very easily established that (in the absence of additional restrictions) you can and multiple links shared, lots of posters would not accept it.

The absolute icing on this cake was a poster telling me I was lying about living on a street with double yellow lines and no driveway (this was why I am familiar with the rules) as there were no such residential streets. Like what a completely batshit thing to make up then defend!

Ha ha as you can see I am still quite annoyed about it.

Perhaps I've framed it wrong. I am talking about arguments where there is an available fact. The sky is blue argument was a poor choice given that yes sometimes it isn't blue.

I didn't give an example because I didn't want the thread to become about that specific thing but here we are. What made me start the thread was my irritation at people confidently stating incorrect facts about welfare claims (Kemi Badenoch and her constipation cars were the tipping point).