Arguing over semantics

[Rageaholic]

is the best way to ruin a good debate or any thread for tthat matter. No, I'm not talking about when semantics are actually important, like debating the wording of a law or contract or when the defination of a word is actually important to what's being debated. What annoys me is literalism, like taking a small snippit of someones post and pointing out their misuse of a word, then correcting them, when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Like if I were to make a comment that (insert important person here) is a coward after showing why I disagree with their stance, I think a lot of people wouldn't take the "coward" part of my comment so literally. But there are a few who would show me a definition of coward and show me why I'm wrong to call them that.

Or even when it is mildly relevent, like if I say I have the right to do something, and then someone comes aboard and shows me their intrepration of the constitution to prove me wrong. Even though I don't mean "rights" in the literal legal sense and may be arguing why I SHOULD have that right. I think it's annoying because a lot of the time those people have nothing left to say and resort to cheap nitpicking. It's even worse when entire threads get hijacked by this irrelevent bullshit.

WTF?

[HYHYBT]

You think it is irrelevant; others may not.

[DrFaroohk]

That's how you know you've won the argument. If you make a big impassioned point full of references and logical arguments and then someone points out that you mixed up "could/couldn't care less", it's because they can't think of anything else to say. You won hands down. They have no defense against that stunning haymaker you just threw at them.

Or, they just are being lazy, and only skimmed the post, because they're not really in the argument anyway, they just want the attention of making a post and feeling smarter than you because they discovered a mistake.

[Rantsylvania 6-5000]

I think it's annoying because a lot of the time those people have nothing left to say and resort to cheap nitpicking. It's even worse when entire threads get hijacked by this irrelevent bullshit.

Or, they just are being lazy, and only skimmed the post, because they're not really in the argument anyway, they just want the attention of making a post and feeling smarter than you because they discovered a mistake.

These are perfectly valid explanations. I've thought the same thing. And it is annoying!

[Amanita]

^I feel the same way about people who use personal insults as a debate tactic- you make a point, and they respond with a personal crack instead of any intellegent rebuttal.

To me, it says that they either have little faith in their arguments and feel they need the added slap of a personal insult to make them stick, or that they know they've got nothing, and are just throwing mud to keep it going.

I remember a discussion on a costuming forum, regarding using makeup to make yourself look like a different race, for the sake of character portrayal. That turned into a discussion on race relations in general, and I said that one thing which frustrated me was the belief that White people can't be victims of racism, or that whites have nothing to add to discussions of racism or race relations.
Another poster (another white person), came right out with the insults, calling me a "white martyr" and so on. No attempt at debate or discussion, just name calling.
Before I even got to respond, a couple of other posters jumped on that one individual, saying "What the hell? You're ruder than anything she's said here!"

[Ladeeda]

I agree. As much as the term "irregardless" makes my teeth grind, unless it's a grammar debate, it doesn't matter.

I'm also annoyed when people make a joke in the middle of a serious debate to derail it.

Example: in a government class, my group was debating the helmet-for-motorcycle laws and seatbelt laws. I forget what point I was making for the laws, but one person's response against was "population control". I reacted harshly about making a joke, and got poo-poo'd away for not having a sense of humor.

The entire conversation was derailed by that point. Not just that one person's fault, obviously, but also of everyone to refused to get back on topic.

[Rageaholic]

You think it is irrelevant; others may not.

Trust me, a lot of the time, it is irrelevant nitpicking. I've seen it on here and I've seen it on other places. Pages will get derailed trying to interprate what someone said in another post. It leads to putting words in each others mouths and taking things out of context.

There are times when the context of a word does actually matter, but it's pretty easy to tell when it does matter and when it's just nitpicking.

Or, they just are being lazy, and only skimmed the post, because they're not really in the argument anyway, they just want the attention of making a post and feeling smarter than you because they discovered a mistake.

Oh I hate that too. It's borderline trolling.

[HYHYBT]

I'm also annoyed when people make a joke in the middle of a serious debate to derail it.

Example: in a government class, my group was debating the helmet-for-motorcycle laws and seatbelt laws. I forget what point I was making for the laws, but one person's response against was "population control". I reacted harshly about making a joke, and got poo-poo'd away for not having a sense of humor.

The entire conversation was derailed by that point. Not just that one person's fault, obviously, but also of everyone to refused to get back on topic.

Actually, with nothing but what you've said to go on, and if you insist there be blame, it sounds like the derailing was *your* fault. The joke, while an attempt at humor of which you disapproved, was on-topic; a complaint about someone making a joke during a serious discussion was not. Had you chosen not to complain over such a trivial matter, the discussion would most likely have continued to be about helmet and seatbelt laws.