My nominee:

"The reason is that..."

Its a bit presumptuous to assume reason is the foundation of existence, don't you think?

For me, there are two kinds of bad arguments:

1. The soldier: Overtly apparent. Means business. Carries a loaded weapon clearly visible and pointed at you. The fallacy is not that difficult to detect, identify and escape without a scratch is possible.

2. The assassin: Covert. Stealthy. Deceptive. Disguised. Has a concealed, loaded weapon complete with a silencer. You won't even realize you're dead ( :chin: ). Fallacy very hard to detect, identify, and unlikely that you'll emerge unscathed - bruises, cuts to be expected.

I think that some times people overuse links in arguments. I am not saying that they are not valid and worthwhile.

However, if they are just included as evidence against a line of thought they can be a means of shutting down thinking rather than aiding it. I am referring to an attitude in which someone says this has been discussed by someone and here is the evidence, end of story.

When I see an answer to a question with a mere link, unsubstantiated by any discussion of the material it contains I feel disappointed. Of course, it is possible to challenge the material contained in it but sometimes I have felt that the person supplying the link has not wished for that, just wishing to rest on the foundation of published 'evidence'.

Worst arguments are those when there are no arguments, when it's just strawman after strawman with some covert or overt ad hominems added there. Or that just to raise a topic instantly means that you are categorized to have be parroting some obnoxious view we find in public discourse, which offends people so much that they are not willing to even look what you say.

The worst arguments are those replies were the person doesn't even bother to read the whole argument he or she is commenting and openly admit this.

Hey all, I kind of had examples in mind, maybe like "look what was in the Daily Planet", or "check this out", preferably somewhat short and identifiable, so as to show what not to do.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I'll start with a nominee:

When someone lets you in on something, you're getting it as you are.
You can therefore never understand them. — jorndoe

Heh, are you trying to repeat Stove's competition? (Stop me if I am spoiling it!)

Heh, are you trying to repeat Stove's competition? (Stop me if I am spoiling it!) — SophistiCat

Admittedly that was one motivation. :)
I thought periodic nominees and winners could be nifty, and the forums a good place for it.
(Perhaps even kind of relevant with the fake dis- mis-information out there.)

In the spirit of Stove's Gem, here is one that occurs on forum a lot in various guises:

You used the word X, the meaning of the word X is a type, therefore the types exist in the manner I believe, Y. It's a particularly common form of gotcha argument, in which someone committed to the existence of X and its status as a Y uses that their opponent has to use the word X when disagreeing about the connection of X and Y.

This is obviously a bad argument, as in cases like this the use of the word X and its connection to the type existing in manner Y is what's at stake in the argument, and just because something can be referred to does not mean it exists in any sense relevant to the discussion (snarks, the shimblybib, Santa Claus, gods).

Example:

You used the word "red", the meaning of the word red is (red sensations, classes of red objects...), therefore there are really red sensations existing (in the mind, as platonic abstractions instantiated in tokens...)

It will also show up in disagreements regarding the nature of abstract objects, and any time someone can take a noun referring to a class and mistake it for a substantive.

therefore there are really red sensations existing (in the mind, as platonic abstractions instantiated in tokens...) — fdrake

Holy abstraction, Batman! Who ever presented this argument anywhere?

I don't wanna name names.

Oh. Ok.