TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Pie Man Argument

The Pie Man Argument

(this may already exist in some form that I am unaware of)


When you are debating/arguing with someone I find that there are a number of annoying ways that someone can respond to your argument which do not further the discussion.

A classic example of this is the 'Straw Man Argument'.

In my own experience I find the most annoying one is what I will term the 'Pie Man Argument', which is similar in kind to the Straw Man, but different enough to deserve its own name.


Essentially it can be understood like this:

Most topics are complex, with multiple parts, and multiple facets. Trying to address them all without writing a book is impossible. So instead given the constraints of communication I (and I think most people) try to present an argument that addresses the heart or the core concept that is on the table. That facet or part that is the most common or the most relevant.

The 'Pie Man Argument' is a response that ignores cases that your argument addresses and instead provides 'fringe' examples and cases which your argument did not address.




While this has a value in that is forces you to provide secondary arguments, I think it most often used by someone who can't address the validity of your primary argument.


So next time this happens to you, remember to say, "pie man arguments are for losers!" or something to that effect

avoid making absolute statements by being specific in your writing and you won't have to deal with the 'pie man'

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T avoid making absolute statements by being specific in your writing and you won't have to deal with the 'pie man'

The problem is that its a combat strategy, and therefore the motivation to use it has little to do with the specific wording of the original text, and more about moving the battle to a realm where the primary argument is at a disadvantage without ever conceding the loss in the original and more significant battlefield.

I love when people bring other elements into an argument that have nothing to do with the primary argument, trying to make whatever point they were trying to make by diverting the subject at hand; sort of a 'reverse-straw man'...

Maybe there is name for that?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Maybe there is name for that?

Irritating the crap out of the other person with frustration.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey The problem is that its a combat strategy, and therefore the motivation to use it has little to do with the specific wording of the original text, and more about moving the battle to a realm where the primary argument is at a disadvantage without ever conceding the loss in the original and more significant battlefield.

[pie-man]not everyone views debates as combats to be won or lost, lira for instance would frown upon that idea.[/pie-man]

...

why not grab the chance to improve yourself (your communication and argumentation skills mostly) when it presents itself?
what do you have to lose by it?

if your argument has been proven to be invalid in 10% of the cases, it was proven to be invalid period (as long as it strives to be valid towards 100% of the cases), regardless of the motivation to disprove said validity.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I love when people bring other elements into an argument that have nothing to do with the primary argument, trying to make whatever point they were trying to make by diverting the subject at hand; sort of a 'reverse-straw man'... Maybe there is name for that?

red herring.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T red herring.

Bingo.
Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T [pie-man]not everyone views debates as combats to be won or lost, lira for instance would frown upon that idea.[/pie-man]

Foundation:

If I want to understand Football (the soccer variety), then I feel that my understanding will be enhanced if I watch a hockey game. In other words I believe that if I want to understand soccer then understanding (team sport + soccer) > (soccer), because part of soccer's identity is its location in the spectrum of sport.

Understanding what is around something simultaneously identifies what is within it in new ways.



One of many structures built using said foundation:

The relationship between Hockey and Football is pretty obvious. A message thread is mutli-faceted. One of the strongest facets that I see is one between a thread and a kung-fu battle. Filled with as many blows, dodges, blocks, leaps and fire balls.

The Pie-man dodge annoys me

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T why not grab the chance to improve yourself (your communication and argumentation skills mostly) when it presents itself? what do you have to lose by it?

Anyone watching a battle is naturally examining the techniques used around them, and getting feedback on the effectiveness of their own techniques when they venture into the fray.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T if your argument has been proven to be invalid in 10% of the cases, it was proven to be invalid period (as long as it strives to be valid towards 100% of the cases), regardless of the motivation to disprove said validity.

Of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey The Pie-man dodge annoys me

well i already offered you a way to punch/kick/etc that can not be dodged with the pie-man, what more do you want?

p.s. i wouldn't call it a dodge, more like a counter-attack if anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T red herring.

begging the question.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.