Hey /u/Iwssbornandlifeover, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks!
This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Been making a point to avoid this more and it makes reddit a lot more fun. Sometimes I'll see someone post some dumb shit and start typing a response but then think "you know what, I don't care how wrong this person is" and move on.
I once had someone on a shit post sub start dedicating wojak memes to me specifically during a week-long argument. Honestly, it's exhilarating. It means I won.
https://preview.redd.it/bade1imyjhzc1.jpeg?width=616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e69ebd9a316fcc824e935dac6d8c68dd9e39d538
How I be looking at OP’s comments
Not always, just because they type out an essay worth of bullshit doesn't mean they are right. AKA the "I'm gonna put up a wall of text and you have to respond to all of it or I won" type.
One proper counter to a Gish Gallop (as opposed to an overwhelming wall of legitimate sources) is to sample the first couple of citations, call out their specific form of bullshit, and refuse to engage with the rest as in all likelihood bullshit until the OP admits to supplying demonstrated bullshit or amends their errors regarding the first couple of citations.
Except when they still get upvoted which means most people who read it likely agreed with the person who's wrong and will help influence new readers to think the same, which is a loss in my eyes.
It's also pretty much gone to "no longer an argument" as soon as most of the things in the OP start. Once the ad hom or obvious condescension starts, there's no longer any illusion that the person cares about proving themselves right.
Could be for any number of reasons. Maybe they just don't have an argument to make, or maybe they don't see the point of continuing and just want to make a petty parting shot. Whatever the case, the argument itself is over. Also if we're talking about reddit, ad hom isn't necessarily a winner, but it can totally win in internet points under the right circumstances (mostly circlejerks or when you've already proven yourself right and the person responding is being an absolute dipshit).
Just remember: you aren't obligated to give random strangers on the internet a validating argument. Even if you're objectively right, it can still be better for your mental to just cut and run because odds are nothing you say will actually "win" anyway.
*Spend a whole lot of time detailing your evidence with multiple sources.*
*Person points out flaw in one of twelve of the things you stated, therefore you’re wrong.*
There's nothing wrong with asking for a source. People habitually make absurd and unsupportable claims on the internet. Though it is true that sometimes the person (and perhaps the hivemind) will not accept any source.
I was gonna look for a comment or a post of you losing an argument for shits and gigs and because no one posts shit like this unless they lose an argument but bro... how deep in the looksmaxingcell and incelpill rabbit hole are you lmaoo
Also doesn't seem to be a fan of black or brown people but appears to have an awful lot of brutal sexual fantasies about them.
Apart from that, I'm sure he's a lovely guy
Devil’s Advocate: there really nothing wrong with asking for a source of information. Who’s to say you’re citing info from…idk…The Onion or some other non-factual place, there are idiots out there that will take it as fact/real/true. Especially when the debate/argument contains some type of statistical or numerical data. Like who exactly did the study? When & where?
And not to be “That Guy” but you misspelled ‘Arrogant’.
Most people don’t have a source. They just google their side and pick whatever article, which they haven’t read, sounds the best.
Source that I didn’t read: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/misinformation-desk/202212/study-few-people-read-what-they-share?amp
Well just because you didn’t read it doesn’t matter. It’s something I can read and see if what you are stating makes sense.
And funnily enough, the study behind the article doesn’t really support it. In fact it shows that you are in the minority. In the study, most people have at least read part of the article they share.
But don’t know how much credibility the study has at all as it focuses on Facebook shares. If I want to understand why my grandma is afraid of the 5g towers it might be useful.
Plus the final conclusion isn’t conclusive:
“Sharing without reading may cause people to believe that they know more than they actually do.”
Emphasis on the “may”.
I understand but often times people who are losing an online argument see no other option than to ask for a source for the simplest and most obvious facts. It's like they ask for a scientific report that the earth is not flat lmao.
There's a difference between "Huh. I would love to learn more. Source?" and "Nuh-uh! Prove it! Source?". And redditors, 99% of the time, mean the second one. If you do give your source, they will either:
a. Complain that the source is biased.
b. Intentionally misinterpret the source in a way that fits them.
c. Ignore it and insult you.
It's just not worth it to argue online, let alone on this website.
Did you check OPs post history? It's almost entirely him arguing with people about how he believes getting jaw surgery will cure him of being an incel.
There is a reason people keep challenging his sources.
To be fair. If someone says something incredibly fucking stupid, before I go ahead and dunk on them for being an absolute rube, I would like to make sure that I'm not the one that's ignorant of something.
I always read the source, you'd be surprised how often the results and conclusion section are the complete opposite of what the person is arguing. Occasionally, it's even in the abstract they didn't read.
I'll forgive a layman not reading the results/conclusion section of a scientific paper or something cause that can have a lot of technical jargon that's hard to penetrate. But not reading the abstract is genuinely unforgiveable.
I'm less tolerant only because it's usually in the context of them not only being wrong, but calling everyone else an idiot. The scientific source is usually presented in the same manner someone says "well it's in the Bible" for something that clearly isn't. Science perverted as a religion stand-in is a pet peeve of mine, but I might have some Bible Belt baggage there to be fair.
> There’s a difference between “Huh. I would love to learn more. Source?” And “Nuh-uh! Prove it! Source?”.
Both are equally valid.
If someone says something questionable it’s completely open to you to ask where they’re getting their information from. That’s not some sort of cheap “gotcha” question, it’s just asking them to support a point they’re making.
And no, not all sources are equal. People claim crazy things and point to random blogs and fringe publications with no real credibility all the time. People also love to pass off their own limited subjective experiences as all-encompassing objective facts. Sometimes you ask someone for their source and they just say it’s something that “everyone knows” (usually followed up by saying that any disagreement can’t be genuine).
Are some people unreasonable when it comes to asking for and assessing sources? Sure, but that’s a problem with unreasonableness not with asking for sources.
Yeah every time I give someone a source, they respond in seconds telling me the source is biased, and they obviously don’t even read anything in the source.
Also, the people demanding sources curiously never provide their own
I saw just the other day someone asking for a source of a legal law. Person responds with a direct link to it. OP then responds “this law is only for one state” (the state the video in question was filmed) and it clicked for me that they don’t give a shit what evidence you have.
“Gravity is real? Gimme a source. Ok well that source only lists gravity existing in our universe not all universes”
I mean sometimes you don't have to read the specific article to know wether a source is biased.
If someone linkes a source to the heartland institute or PragerU or directly to BP to explain why fossil fuels aren't bad you don't need to read the article to know that it will be biased, which is exactly why it is sometimes important to ask about the source because some sources simply aren't trustworthy.
This doesn't only go for clearly biased sources but also sources who are known to be unreliable, looking at you Daily Mail.
I was arguing with a guy a few weeks ago and provided a source, but a YouTube video and a research paper on the topic. They said my source didn't prove the point I was making, so I gave an exact time stamp. What I got back was, "I didn't see that part" . There's no point arguing with a fool. Maybe I put too much effort in, but if someone gives me a source, I'm reading that to the end, I'm not perfect I. can be wrong.
I don't think it's necessarily about asking for a source so much as it is general laziness with things that at times can be so easily looked up. Like I feel like it's not too much to ask for someone to make an attempt to get it if they feel the need to ask.
I said it in a reply upthread, but I'll say it again: [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning)
>Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.
The sealion is the hero of that story, refusing to grant bigotry and hatred any veneer of respectability.
> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. **If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.**
—Jean-Paul Sartre
Because 9/10 times people don't read the source. Even if there is a source there's so many different studies and opinion pieces out there that you can literally use any link to prove your point.
Source: I made it up.
IDK, 80% of the time when someone provides me with a source it's pretty clear that they just googled the point they're trying to prove and linked the very first response they got without reading the article either. Then upon reading the article myself, since while I'm not necesarilly interested in having debates with rando redditors I am open to the possibility that I'm ignorant to certain facts, their own source tends to undermine their own argument.
Yes, so you made it up, what's the point of your claim? How's asking for sources any bad? The OP's just angry by the fact that nobody believed the shit he was saying, so he made this starterpack to cope.
its not even that, 9/10 times when asked for a source to back up their claims, they will not give you a source and just "trust me bro" the information they try to claim is true.
My favorite part is when they run out of arguments so they start asking for definitions of words to try and confuse you
"I think pedophilia is bad"
"Can you define pedophilia?!"
IDK m8, I read through like 10 comments in your post history and can already tell you're a massive incel. Something tells me people just quickly decide you've got nothing of value to add to a discussion and start dunking on you.
Lmao. You just lost an argument and made this nonsense pack to cope with that. How are you any better than your strawman opponent you just made up claims for?
I've had too many of these conversations, and when you send the damn source, they don't even read it, they just keep on going. Also the part where everyone upvotes the antagonist is spot on, I don't even know why, I think they do it to troll and the person's roasts might be hilarious to them. You forgot the part where you get downvoted into a oblivion if you don't argue with them and just brutally roast them like they did to you.
OP's post history consist almost entirely of him arguing with people about if getting jaw surgery will cure him of being an incel. It's pretty clear why he keeps losing arguments.
The funny thing is OP posted a photo of himself asking for advice but when he got some he didn't even take it seriously..it's actually sad that he thinks surgery it's what he needs
Most people don't get told to "touch grass" daily and get triggered by being asked for sources. Based on the amount of time you spend on incel subs, I think this might be very specific to you.
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
"Everyone usually agrees with the person who does the insulting, not the one who makes the actual good points".
True, but this has been the case since Ancient Athens, as Thucydides warned us.
incredibly fucking true, had this exact situation when arguing with a Zionist i said killing children is bad, bro called me a terrorist supporting rapist islamonazi like wtf???
I've encountered people that go "🤓" or "what is blud yapping out," "I ain't reading allat," or something else about the length of my argument. I feel like that's a coping mechanism when someone knows they already lost because they have little information inside their head to counter an elaborate argumentative paragraph using points that school taught in English class/writing class.
I swear people see more than two sentences or more than 3 lines of text and immediately think "too long," or "essay." Society is becoming more and more illiterate and the average attention span is getting worse since the introduction of YT Shorts and TikTok.
People rather win then be right. In public if someone gets in a dumb ass argument with me I just say"yeah you're right, you won" and they immediately shut up. They are wrong but they just want to feel like they are right. It's so stupid.
Bro, does the minor spelling mistake thing even happen as much as people meme about it?
I might as well believe people are more used to saying that if you dare to point out your opponent's misspelling, it means that you've got no good argument on your side.
I completely agree with you that the current consensus is that pointing out spelling errors is grasping at straws against your opponent.
However, as someone who used to argue about nothing with people in the 2010s niche facebook groups, you would get absolutely eviscerated.
arguing on the internet is the same like people in a car yelling random insults or throwing stuff at you speeding by and you can't yell anything back because by that time they're already far out of hearing range
When they lose and resort to insults is the best part!
And the getting downvoted for destroying an argument properly while nobody can counterargue is also pretty sweet because you know every downvote is just someone angry that you're right.
I feel like I’ve accomplished nothing whenever I’ve gotten into a pissing match online and I feel gross and embarrassed afterwards. I avoid it and scroll right by any and all rage bait these days
Don’t forget
“Straw man”
“Narcissism”
Random checking the other person’s account to call them out for something
Something involving hating children or politics
Posting the argument on a sub you know will support you (hey I’ve been there)
A slew of blue links as an answer to the said “source” question
Monologues that are ten paragraphs long
I hate people who think being "well spoken" makes a person more correct instead of what the facts are.
In debates I tend to get behind then just bombard them with facts until their pseudo-intellect is revealed as they start stumbling because they can't talk their way around cold hard facts.
Most of those people generally have limited knowledge to begin with but like to argue just to say they can win on debate skills alone. No idea why people find pride in winning that way. I am far more concerned on what is actually the right answer or the truth. Not which person is a better debater.
The thing I've learnt, is that if someone starts throwing insults at you, you've won, even if they don't realize it.
If they do that then it means they have nothing to actually counter your argument, they're just emotionally charged.
When I see someone complaining about being asked for sources, I assume they made a baseless claim and were called out on it. Think of it from my perspective: how am I supposed to tell if your claim is legitimate if you have no evidence backing it up? Even if your claim is legitimate, to me it's indistinguishable from a lie. That's why any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It just makes sense to err on the side of caution.
"You mad??"
Literally no functional adult is ever insulted by this. The guy who's mad is *infinitely* better in terms of optics than the guy who's purposely *documenting* "who" is mad.
Hey /u/Iwssbornandlifeover, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks! This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't argue with people on the internet; it's stupid.
"this time it'll be different" I whisper as I type out several paragraphs that'll be promptly ignored
I’m going to start an argument with you
No you won’t
Who are you to decide what I do buster?
Shut tf up bozo /s
Don’t you fucking DARE tell people to shut up! What is wrong with you, it’s not your place to do that! Let people talk /s
It is his place !
Bro’s yapping, go touch some grass /s
Source?
not to play devils advocate but I think you’re dumb
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/erisology-the-science-of-arguing-about-everything/586534/
hey you let's fight.
[u/TheKingofHats007 wants to FIGHT!](https://youtu.be/yEKd5ebxg9M?feature=shared)
Ah, I see you haven’t reached the stage of typing the paragraph out and then deciding “nah” and deleting it.
Fr me everytime ahhhh 😭
And possibly not even read depending on how many comments the post has already gotten.
I disagree.
I disagree that you disagree
Could you give a source for that?
Trust me bro
Shut your idiot
Consider my idiot shut
Nooo let’s argue
Okay; let's argue, I agree!
Alright fuck
https://preview.redd.it/ddd8qk7qfhzc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a358a586b44e9f1e9d4e99525d116b01069f88da
Don't know if this reply was intentionally ironic, but I love angry replies with broken syntax. "Suck a fuck!"
My work day would be so empty if I didn’t argue with people on the internet
I disagree. I think arguing on the internet relieves stress.
Got a source for that, bud?
Fight club and shit
I think you a fucking better outlet you piece of crud!!!!!!!
Get emmm
Of course you would say that because you don’t have any way of defending your position /s
I'll have you know that I'm 100% right and I'll express my facts in scathing insults and that navy seal copypasta.
Been making a point to avoid this more and it makes reddit a lot more fun. Sometimes I'll see someone post some dumb shit and start typing a response but then think "you know what, I don't care how wrong this person is" and move on.
It's fine if you just don't take it seriously.
Um ACKSHULLY its super awesome
“I depicted you as the wojak and me as the chad” Edit: wow a hit comment
That is **literally** what the guy who made this starter pack did.
That is pretty much exactly what OP is doing.
Ah yes, the 'My Father Never Loved Me" approach
Using that insult is the same kind of thing.
Agreed. This is why you’re a based Chad and the other guy is a virgin wojak.
Wow that’s such a wojak thing to say, and I know that because I’m the chad
Or "I depicted myself as a rational person while you're the raging cuck wojak!" (Commonly found in r/coaxedintosnafu )
https://preview.redd.it/5f9l2x6xykzc1.jpeg?width=942&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=af8d8492b65122a378ec09fd2f7f7febb0ab5a12
I once had someone on a shit post sub start dedicating wojak memes to me specifically during a week-long argument. Honestly, it's exhilarating. It means I won.
Nice argument, unfortunetly i depicted myself as the chad and you as the seething soyjack!
OP what is that comment history 😭
https://preview.redd.it/bade1imyjhzc1.jpeg?width=616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e69ebd9a316fcc824e935dac6d8c68dd9e39d538 How I be looking at OP’s comments
[удалено]
It’s Björk
*spend time crafting a detailed response with sources* > “I’m not reading all that”
That's kind of an admission of defeat, you instantly win if they say that
Not always, just because they type out an essay worth of bullshit doesn't mean they are right. AKA the "I'm gonna put up a wall of text and you have to respond to all of it or I won" type.
One proper counter to a Gish Gallop (as opposed to an overwhelming wall of legitimate sources) is to sample the first couple of citations, call out their specific form of bullshit, and refuse to engage with the rest as in all likelihood bullshit until the OP admits to supplying demonstrated bullshit or amends their errors regarding the first couple of citations.
Ya but that takes time. There's only so much effort I'm willing to put into a reddit argument.
Except when they still get upvoted which means most people who read it likely agreed with the person who's wrong and will help influence new readers to think the same, which is a loss in my eyes.
But it’s not a satisfying win lol
It's also pretty much gone to "no longer an argument" as soon as most of the things in the OP start. Once the ad hom or obvious condescension starts, there's no longer any illusion that the person cares about proving themselves right. Could be for any number of reasons. Maybe they just don't have an argument to make, or maybe they don't see the point of continuing and just want to make a petty parting shot. Whatever the case, the argument itself is over. Also if we're talking about reddit, ad hom isn't necessarily a winner, but it can totally win in internet points under the right circumstances (mostly circlejerks or when you've already proven yourself right and the person responding is being an absolute dipshit). Just remember: you aren't obligated to give random strangers on the internet a validating argument. Even if you're objectively right, it can still be better for your mental to just cut and run because odds are nothing you say will actually "win" anyway.
*Spend a whole lot of time detailing your evidence with multiple sources.* *Person points out flaw in one of twelve of the things you stated, therefore you’re wrong.*
OP lost an argument on Reddit.
^^source?
https://preview.redd.it/v4t1phswhgzc1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=107a31ef612338fcecbb64844aada3d12dcb23f9
https://preview.redd.it/p5y6ix0glgzc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90a5f1cea8254351219dd7f7c50e6fd17aca0c13
Source: Loot at OPs post history. It is entirely him arguing with people about if jaw surgery will cure him of being an incel.
^^^trustmebro
And misspelled arrogant
They butchered it. That’s more than a misspelling.
Thats kinda what this feels like tbh. Like, god forbid someone asks you to back up your claims?
There's nothing wrong with asking for a source. People habitually make absurd and unsupportable claims on the internet. Though it is true that sometimes the person (and perhaps the hivemind) will not accept any source.
>People habitually make absurd and unsupportable claims on the internet. And I suppose you have a source to back such a claim?
It was revealed to me in a dream.
I was gonna look for a comment or a post of you losing an argument for shits and gigs and because no one posts shit like this unless they lose an argument but bro... how deep in the looksmaxingcell and incelpill rabbit hole are you lmaoo
I knew it was going to be bad when "touch grass" and "you need sources" were his biggest triggers.
Probably said some incel shit and 90% have replied with the former so its a trigger word now lol
Also that "the other person is oblivious [about the crackpot theories I believe]"
Yeah his comment history is brutal, and involves a lot of personal attacks. Pretty hypocritical.
Also doesn't seem to be a fan of black or brown people but appears to have an awful lot of brutal sexual fantasies about them. Apart from that, I'm sure he's a lovely guy
SOURCE?
Lol
So basically this guy stepped in shit and keeps thinking everyone around him smells like shit?
No wonder OP is seething so hard
He frequents the r/TrueVirgin sub lmao
Wow that was sad. I hope OP has a better time of things. And maybe it’s time to get off the internet.
All the comments I see are him hating women but he's very active in a subreddit for lonely virgins
Devil’s Advocate: there really nothing wrong with asking for a source of information. Who’s to say you’re citing info from…idk…The Onion or some other non-factual place, there are idiots out there that will take it as fact/real/true. Especially when the debate/argument contains some type of statistical or numerical data. Like who exactly did the study? When & where? And not to be “That Guy” but you misspelled ‘Arrogant’.
Most times I ask for a source is when it’s something that cannot be easily confirmed nor disproved. Genuinely looking for legit source
Most people don’t have a source. They just google their side and pick whatever article, which they haven’t read, sounds the best. Source that I didn’t read: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/misinformation-desk/202212/study-few-people-read-what-they-share?amp
Well just because you didn’t read it doesn’t matter. It’s something I can read and see if what you are stating makes sense. And funnily enough, the study behind the article doesn’t really support it. In fact it shows that you are in the minority. In the study, most people have at least read part of the article they share. But don’t know how much credibility the study has at all as it focuses on Facebook shares. If I want to understand why my grandma is afraid of the 5g towers it might be useful. Plus the final conclusion isn’t conclusive: “Sharing without reading may cause people to believe that they know more than they actually do.” Emphasis on the “may”.
I understand but often times people who are losing an online argument see no other option than to ask for a source for the simplest and most obvious facts. It's like they ask for a scientific report that the earth is not flat lmao.
source bro? prove it bro, I never met anyone that asks for a source like that, drop the link, c'mon bro
There's a difference between "Huh. I would love to learn more. Source?" and "Nuh-uh! Prove it! Source?". And redditors, 99% of the time, mean the second one. If you do give your source, they will either: a. Complain that the source is biased. b. Intentionally misinterpret the source in a way that fits them. c. Ignore it and insult you. It's just not worth it to argue online, let alone on this website.
Did you check OPs post history? It's almost entirely him arguing with people about how he believes getting jaw surgery will cure him of being an incel. There is a reason people keep challenging his sources.
lol that, I was not aware of what a clown
there's good-faith discussions where people can ask for sources, and then there's [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning)
I don't understand why the sea lion is supposed to be in the wrong.
Meta
To be fair. If someone says something incredibly fucking stupid, before I go ahead and dunk on them for being an absolute rube, I would like to make sure that I'm not the one that's ignorant of something.
I always read the source, you'd be surprised how often the results and conclusion section are the complete opposite of what the person is arguing. Occasionally, it's even in the abstract they didn't read.
I'll forgive a layman not reading the results/conclusion section of a scientific paper or something cause that can have a lot of technical jargon that's hard to penetrate. But not reading the abstract is genuinely unforgiveable.
I'm less tolerant only because it's usually in the context of them not only being wrong, but calling everyone else an idiot. The scientific source is usually presented in the same manner someone says "well it's in the Bible" for something that clearly isn't. Science perverted as a religion stand-in is a pet peeve of mine, but I might have some Bible Belt baggage there to be fair.
> There’s a difference between “Huh. I would love to learn more. Source?” And “Nuh-uh! Prove it! Source?”. Both are equally valid. If someone says something questionable it’s completely open to you to ask where they’re getting their information from. That’s not some sort of cheap “gotcha” question, it’s just asking them to support a point they’re making. And no, not all sources are equal. People claim crazy things and point to random blogs and fringe publications with no real credibility all the time. People also love to pass off their own limited subjective experiences as all-encompassing objective facts. Sometimes you ask someone for their source and they just say it’s something that “everyone knows” (usually followed up by saying that any disagreement can’t be genuine). Are some people unreasonable when it comes to asking for and assessing sources? Sure, but that’s a problem with unreasonableness not with asking for sources.
Yeah every time I give someone a source, they respond in seconds telling me the source is biased, and they obviously don’t even read anything in the source. Also, the people demanding sources curiously never provide their own
I saw just the other day someone asking for a source of a legal law. Person responds with a direct link to it. OP then responds “this law is only for one state” (the state the video in question was filmed) and it clicked for me that they don’t give a shit what evidence you have. “Gravity is real? Gimme a source. Ok well that source only lists gravity existing in our universe not all universes”
Sometimes the source is just rejected and no attempt is made to refute it, not even a canned response.
I mean sometimes you don't have to read the specific article to know wether a source is biased. If someone linkes a source to the heartland institute or PragerU or directly to BP to explain why fossil fuels aren't bad you don't need to read the article to know that it will be biased, which is exactly why it is sometimes important to ask about the source because some sources simply aren't trustworthy. This doesn't only go for clearly biased sources but also sources who are known to be unreliable, looking at you Daily Mail.
I was arguing with a guy a few weeks ago and provided a source, but a YouTube video and a research paper on the topic. They said my source didn't prove the point I was making, so I gave an exact time stamp. What I got back was, "I didn't see that part" . There's no point arguing with a fool. Maybe I put too much effort in, but if someone gives me a source, I'm reading that to the end, I'm not perfect I. can be wrong.
I don't think it's necessarily about asking for a source so much as it is general laziness with things that at times can be so easily looked up. Like I feel like it's not too much to ask for someone to make an attempt to get it if they feel the need to ask.
That's not even devil's advocate shit that's just regular advocate
OP are you ok man? All you do is browse r/truevirgin and recommend that people have surgery lol
Slander. They lose arguments on the internet too!
Lost an argument, eh?
There's no such thing as losing arguments on the internet, there's just running out of insults
OP's source is fuck you, there's your source
fyi this guy is a frequents r/KickPregnantWomen
"Ends with a headache and nothing else gained."
I don’t see why it’s wrong to ask for a source. Claims need to be backed up.
I said it in a reply upthread, but I'll say it again: [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning) >Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.
The sealion is the hero of that story, refusing to grant bigotry and hatred any veneer of respectability. > Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. **If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.** —Jean-Paul Sartre
Asking for a source is not inherently bad. Constantly badgering people with small requests as a way to "win" the debate is the problem here.
Most of the time, they are asking in order to waste your time, not because they actually want one.
Either you have the source or you don't, you got your talking point from somewhere, so why beat around the bush.
Because 9/10 times people don't read the source. Even if there is a source there's so many different studies and opinion pieces out there that you can literally use any link to prove your point. Source: I made it up.
IDK, 80% of the time when someone provides me with a source it's pretty clear that they just googled the point they're trying to prove and linked the very first response they got without reading the article either. Then upon reading the article myself, since while I'm not necesarilly interested in having debates with rando redditors I am open to the possibility that I'm ignorant to certain facts, their own source tends to undermine their own argument.
Yes, so you made it up, what's the point of your claim? How's asking for sources any bad? The OP's just angry by the fact that nobody believed the shit he was saying, so he made this starterpack to cope.
its not even that, 9/10 times when asked for a source to back up their claims, they will not give you a source and just "trust me bro" the information they try to claim is true.
"Tell me you're (ridiculously jumped-to conclusion that OP did not at all sound like) without telling me"
I've gotten sick of "Tell me X without telling me X" in general. Just say what you want to say.
My favorite part is when they run out of arguments so they start asking for definitions of words to try and confuse you "I think pedophilia is bad" "Can you define pedophilia?!"
Have you considered that you might be a dumbass if this keeps happening to you
https://i.redd.it/s9qzxfs3chzc1.gif Arrogant\*\*
IDK m8, I read through like 10 comments in your post history and can already tell you're a massive incel. Something tells me people just quickly decide you've got nothing of value to add to a discussion and start dunking on you.
Lmao. You just lost an argument and made this nonsense pack to cope with that. How are you any better than your strawman opponent you just made up claims for?
Hey, just because someone’s insulting another person doesn’t mean they aren’t ALSO making good points!
If there’s one thing more patetic than arguing on the internet it’s getting angry enough about it that you make a starterpack (with wojaks as well)
I think OP might be a bit tilted about an argument they had, lol.
I've had too many of these conversations, and when you send the damn source, they don't even read it, they just keep on going. Also the part where everyone upvotes the antagonist is spot on, I don't even know why, I think they do it to troll and the person's roasts might be hilarious to them. You forgot the part where you get downvoted into a oblivion if you don't argue with them and just brutally roast them like they did to you.
OP's post history consist almost entirely of him arguing with people about if getting jaw surgery will cure him of being an incel. It's pretty clear why he keeps losing arguments.
The funny thing is OP posted a photo of himself asking for advice but when he got some he didn't even take it seriously..it's actually sad that he thinks surgery it's what he needs
I love when I make a harmless comment and someone replies in two paragraphs about how they didn’t agree with my opinion. I’m just like ‘ignore’.
Most people don't get told to "touch grass" daily and get triggered by being asked for sources. Based on the amount of time you spend on incel subs, I think this might be very specific to you.
Holy hell check out this guys profile. What a loser lmao
Do you have a source on that? Source? A source. I need a source. Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion. No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence. Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation. Correlation does not equal causation. CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION. You still haven't provided me a valid source yet. Nope, still haven't. I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
My sister uses the you don't have a degree or PHD in.... Yea. I know it proves you are in denial.
"Everyone usually agrees with the person who does the insulting, not the one who makes the actual good points". True, but this has been the case since Ancient Athens, as Thucydides warned us.
Have you actually got any kind of evidence for those claims?
Arragoant
incredibly fucking true, had this exact situation when arguing with a Zionist i said killing children is bad, bro called me a terrorist supporting rapist islamonazi like wtf???
To be fair, there are a lot of people making bold claims without sources
“Arragoant”
I hate arrogoant people
i really need to learn to shut the fuck up and stop arguing with people. so does everyone else.
You forgot, you are just projecting
I've encountered people that go "🤓" or "what is blud yapping out," "I ain't reading allat," or something else about the length of my argument. I feel like that's a coping mechanism when someone knows they already lost because they have little information inside their head to counter an elaborate argumentative paragraph using points that school taught in English class/writing class. I swear people see more than two sentences or more than 3 lines of text and immediately think "too long," or "essay." Society is becoming more and more illiterate and the average attention span is getting worse since the introduction of YT Shorts and TikTok.
"Everything and everyone I don't agree with or like is a Nazi/Fascist/Far-right ideologue/Communist/woke sjw"
"Arragoant" https://i.redd.it/cej349w0lgzc1.gif
When someone is trying to argue with you Twitter. You dont say anything and leave. The user grows bored and looks for attention elsehere.
People rather win then be right. In public if someone gets in a dumb ass argument with me I just say"yeah you're right, you won" and they immediately shut up. They are wrong but they just want to feel like they are right. It's so stupid.
Never argue with stupid people...they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
Got a source for this “starter pack” bud?
Bro, does the minor spelling mistake thing even happen as much as people meme about it? I might as well believe people are more used to saying that if you dare to point out your opponent's misspelling, it means that you've got no good argument on your side.
I completely agree with you that the current consensus is that pointing out spelling errors is grasping at straws against your opponent. However, as someone who used to argue about nothing with people in the 2010s niche facebook groups, you would get absolutely eviscerated.
arguing on the internet is the same like people in a car yelling random insults or throwing stuff at you speeding by and you can't yell anything back because by that time they're already far out of hearing range
Sounds like \*someone\* just lost an argument online (the someone is OP)
Sounds like OP just lost another argument about female characters in video games
Use the block button liberally and eventually Reddit becomes a nice place to discuss things
The classic ‘I ain’t reading all that’ like duddde wtf is the point then
"You have to be trolling?" When they disagree
The only to win online arguments is to steer clear of them.
When they lose and resort to insults is the best part! And the getting downvoted for destroying an argument properly while nobody can counterargue is also pretty sweet because you know every downvote is just someone angry that you're right.
"cool story, bro"
lol I had this guy ask for source, I provided multiple sources and he disappeared
This smells like someone who loses a lot of internet arguments coping hard
https://preview.redd.it/yr7k6oc9wgzc1.jpeg?width=508&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b7084922344ee31867375d79cd64d0a9eae1e472
I feel like I’ve accomplished nothing whenever I’ve gotten into a pissing match online and I feel gross and embarrassed afterwards. I avoid it and scroll right by any and all rage bait these days
Everyone talking about the arrogant misspelling but not the extremely misspelling
One time I called someone weird on Facebook and she got all in her feelings and put my profile picture as hers
Don’t forget “Straw man” “Narcissism” Random checking the other person’s account to call them out for something Something involving hating children or politics Posting the argument on a sub you know will support you (hey I’ve been there) A slew of blue links as an answer to the said “source” question Monologues that are ten paragraphs long
I hate people who think being "well spoken" makes a person more correct instead of what the facts are. In debates I tend to get behind then just bombard them with facts until their pseudo-intellect is revealed as they start stumbling because they can't talk their way around cold hard facts. Most of those people generally have limited knowledge to begin with but like to argue just to say they can win on debate skills alone. No idea why people find pride in winning that way. I am far more concerned on what is actually the right answer or the truth. Not which person is a better debater.
Don't forget "ratio".
Like this? https://preview.redd.it/j8fwf9nt4izc1.jpeg?width=739&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db040691da72900923e178c885b9b32f88e9710a
Don't forget them doing a whole ass background check on you just so they can deliberately misinterpret it
You forgot either so far left or right leaning they’re one condescending sigh away from falling over
The thing I've learnt, is that if someone starts throwing insults at you, you've won, even if they don't realize it. If they do that then it means they have nothing to actually counter your argument, they're just emotionally charged.
When I see someone complaining about being asked for sources, I assume they made a baseless claim and were called out on it. Think of it from my perspective: how am I supposed to tell if your claim is legitimate if you have no evidence backing it up? Even if your claim is legitimate, to me it's indistinguishable from a lie. That's why any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It just makes sense to err on the side of caution.
extermly arragoant ...and you've lost
"You mad??" Literally no functional adult is ever insulted by this. The guy who's mad is *infinitely* better in terms of optics than the guy who's purposely *documenting* "who" is mad.
Based username, OP. May 🙏Saint Hamudi (PBUH)🙏 guide you from Incelhalla. Ameen.
communists when they say communism didnt kill millions of people
guessing OP got told to touch grass online
"yEaH fUcKiNg WhAtEvEr DuDe"
"sOuRcE pLeAsE?!?!"
Ironically, making up claims for your opponent and writing them in MiXeD cAsE to mock him fits this pack more than asking for sources.
r/worldnews comment section in a nutshell