Is there a term for someone trying to dismiss an argument without addressing the points?
Let me give you an example. Two people are having a debate on the internet (surprise, surprise). Person A and Person B go back and forth a few times. Person B catches Person A in a fallacy. Instead of addressing the point, Person A respond with something along the lines of "not even going to bother to read this" in an attempt to dismiss the argument without addressing it at all.
Is there a word or expression for this?
word-choice expressions american-english vocabulary
asked 7 hours ago
BrianBrian
1
New contributor
Brian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Let me give you an example. Two people are having a debate on the internet (surprise, surprise). Person A and Person B go back and forth a few times. Person B catches Person A in a fallacy. Instead of addressing the point, Person A respond with something along the lines of "not even going to bother to read this" in an attempt to dismiss the argument without addressing it at all.
Is there a word or expression for this?
word-choice expressions american-english vocabulary
asked 7 hours ago
BrianBrian
1
New contributor
Brian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Isn't dismissing an argument without addressing the points dismissing it?
– Azor Ahai
6 hours ago
The (nice) word you are looking for is "jerk." I am not being flip. The only people who do what you describe are jerks. (The assumption here is that the fallacy is real and B has found it in good faith.) There's no special word for what A is doing, but you didn't ask for a word for that. You asked for a word for A. If "jerk" is too tame - it is for me - I'd say "A" is a good start.
– remarkl
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Let me give you an example. Two people are having a debate on the internet (surprise, surprise). Person A and Person B go back and forth a few times. Person B catches Person A in a fallacy. Instead of addressing the point, Person A respond with something along the lines of "not even going to bother to read this" in an attempt to dismiss the argument without addressing it at all.
Is there a word or expression for this?
word-choice expressions american-english vocabulary
asked 7 hours ago
BrianBrian
1
New contributor
Brian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Let me give you an example. Two people are having a debate on the internet (surprise, surprise). Person A and Person B go back and forth a few times. Person B catches Person A in a fallacy. Instead of addressing the point, Person A respond with something along the lines of "not even going to bother to read this" in an attempt to dismiss the argument without addressing it at all.
Is there a word or expression for this?
word-choice expressions american-english vocabulary
word-choice expressions american-english vocabulary
asked 7 hours ago
BrianBrian
1
New contributor
Brian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 7 hours ago
BrianBrian
1
New contributor
Brian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 7 hours ago
BrianBrian
1
New contributor
Brian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 7 hours ago
BrianBrian
1
asked 7 hours ago
BrianBrian
1
1
New contributor
Brian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Brian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Brian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Isn't dismissing an argument without addressing the points dismissing it?
– Azor Ahai
6 hours ago
The (nice) word you are looking for is "jerk." I am not being flip. The only people who do what you describe are jerks. (The assumption here is that the fallacy is real and B has found it in good faith.) There's no special word for what A is doing, but you didn't ask for a word for that. You asked for a word for A. If "jerk" is too tame - it is for me - I'd say "A" is a good start.
– remarkl
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Isn't dismissing an argument without addressing the points dismissing it?
– Azor Ahai
6 hours ago
The (nice) word you are looking for is "jerk." I am not being flip. The only people who do what you describe are jerks. (The assumption here is that the fallacy is real and B has found it in good faith.) There's no special word for what A is doing, but you didn't ask for a word for that. You asked for a word for A. If "jerk" is too tame - it is for me - I'd say "A" is a good start.
– remarkl
3 hours ago
2
2
Isn't dismissing an argument without addressing the points dismissing it?
– Azor Ahai
6 hours ago
Isn't dismissing an argument without addressing the points dismissing it?
– Azor Ahai
6 hours ago
The (nice) word you are looking for is "jerk." I am not being flip. The only people who do what you describe are jerks. (The assumption here is that the fallacy is real and B has found it in good faith.) There's no special word for what A is doing, but you didn't ask for a word for that. You asked for a word for A. If "jerk" is too tame - it is for me - I'd say "A" is a good start.
– remarkl
3 hours ago
The (nice) word you are looking for is "jerk." I am not being flip. The only people who do what you describe are jerks. (The assumption here is that the fallacy is real and B has found it in good faith.) There's no special word for what A is doing, but you didn't ask for a word for that. You asked for a word for A. If "jerk" is too tame - it is for me - I'd say "A" is a good start.
– remarkl
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
to scoff at someone or something TFD
to show ridicule or scorn for someone or something.
As in"
The directors scoffed at her when she presented her argument.
answered 5 hours ago
lbflbf
21.8k22575
add a comment |
In the context of logical argumentation, they move from being a Logician or a Philosopher to a Rhetorician, a Sophist, or just an Antagonist depending on their goal being dismissive.
Regardless, if you have caught someone in a contradiction in a logical debate and you call it out, the argument is over - if the situation requires them to look or read something because you tell them they have contradicted themselves...and all they need to do is look; refusal is tantamount to them looking and recognizing the contradiction. They are a Sophist, a Brigand, or the Loser of a Debate by Default.
If they dismiss the contradiction without even addressing it, yet aggressively push the argument forward, they are the Loser by Default, but they are also an Antagonist or an Oppugner (this is rooted the same as a Pugilist; therefore, although not widely used, I think it is an apt term).
But if the debate doesn't end once they've contradicted themselves, you essentially have the green light to counter with anything, including an ad hominem attack, because, logically, anything follows from reductio ad absurdum. It might be out of poor taste to do this, but that depends on context.
For example, if you're debating someone in prison who dismisses the contradiction and begins aggressively arguing forward, you can't just walk away because you won. That makes you a punk; and nobody wants to be a punk in prison - so in this case, to prove a point, you are released from the rules of logic and should hammer away.
answered 5 hours ago
J. Mac JordanJ. Mac Jordan
134
New contributor
J. Mac Jordan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Brian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488136%2fis-there-a-term-for-someone-trying-to-dismiss-an-argument-without-addressing-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
to scoff at someone or something TFD
to show ridicule or scorn for someone or something.
As in"
The directors scoffed at her when she presented her argument.
answered 5 hours ago
lbflbf
21.8k22575
add a comment |
to scoff at someone or something TFD
to show ridicule or scorn for someone or something.
As in"
The directors scoffed at her when she presented her argument.
answered 5 hours ago
lbflbf
21.8k22575
add a comment |
to scoff at someone or something TFD
to show ridicule or scorn for someone or something.
As in"
The directors scoffed at her when she presented her argument.
answered 5 hours ago
lbflbf
21.8k22575
to scoff at someone or something TFD
to show ridicule or scorn for someone or something.
As in"
The directors scoffed at her when she presented her argument.
answered 5 hours ago
lbflbf
21.8k22575
answered 5 hours ago
lbflbf
21.8k22575
answered 5 hours ago
lbflbf
21.8k22575
answered 5 hours ago
lbflbf
21.8k22575
21.8k22575
add a comment |
add a comment |
In the context of logical argumentation, they move from being a Logician or a Philosopher to a Rhetorician, a Sophist, or just an Antagonist depending on their goal being dismissive.
Regardless, if you have caught someone in a contradiction in a logical debate and you call it out, the argument is over - if the situation requires them to look or read something because you tell them they have contradicted themselves...and all they need to do is look; refusal is tantamount to them looking and recognizing the contradiction. They are a Sophist, a Brigand, or the Loser of a Debate by Default.
If they dismiss the contradiction without even addressing it, yet aggressively push the argument forward, they are the Loser by Default, but they are also an Antagonist or an Oppugner (this is rooted the same as a Pugilist; therefore, although not widely used, I think it is an apt term).
But if the debate doesn't end once they've contradicted themselves, you essentially have the green light to counter with anything, including an ad hominem attack, because, logically, anything follows from reductio ad absurdum. It might be out of poor taste to do this, but that depends on context.
For example, if you're debating someone in prison who dismisses the contradiction and begins aggressively arguing forward, you can't just walk away because you won. That makes you a punk; and nobody wants to be a punk in prison - so in this case, to prove a point, you are released from the rules of logic and should hammer away.
answered 5 hours ago
J. Mac JordanJ. Mac Jordan
134
New contributor
J. Mac Jordan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
In the context of logical argumentation, they move from being a Logician or a Philosopher to a Rhetorician, a Sophist, or just an Antagonist depending on their goal being dismissive.
Regardless, if you have caught someone in a contradiction in a logical debate and you call it out, the argument is over - if the situation requires them to look or read something because you tell them they have contradicted themselves...and all they need to do is look; refusal is tantamount to them looking and recognizing the contradiction. They are a Sophist, a Brigand, or the Loser of a Debate by Default.
If they dismiss the contradiction without even addressing it, yet aggressively push the argument forward, they are the Loser by Default, but they are also an Antagonist or an Oppugner (this is rooted the same as a Pugilist; therefore, although not widely used, I think it is an apt term).
But if the debate doesn't end once they've contradicted themselves, you essentially have the green light to counter with anything, including an ad hominem attack, because, logically, anything follows from reductio ad absurdum. It might be out of poor taste to do this, but that depends on context.
For example, if you're debating someone in prison who dismisses the contradiction and begins aggressively arguing forward, you can't just walk away because you won. That makes you a punk; and nobody wants to be a punk in prison - so in this case, to prove a point, you are released from the rules of logic and should hammer away.
answered 5 hours ago
J. Mac JordanJ. Mac Jordan
134
New contributor
J. Mac Jordan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
In the context of logical argumentation, they move from being a Logician or a Philosopher to a Rhetorician, a Sophist, or just an Antagonist depending on their goal being dismissive.
Regardless, if you have caught someone in a contradiction in a logical debate and you call it out, the argument is over - if the situation requires them to look or read something because you tell them they have contradicted themselves...and all they need to do is look; refusal is tantamount to them looking and recognizing the contradiction. They are a Sophist, a Brigand, or the Loser of a Debate by Default.
If they dismiss the contradiction without even addressing it, yet aggressively push the argument forward, they are the Loser by Default, but they are also an Antagonist or an Oppugner (this is rooted the same as a Pugilist; therefore, although not widely used, I think it is an apt term).
But if the debate doesn't end once they've contradicted themselves, you essentially have the green light to counter with anything, including an ad hominem attack, because, logically, anything follows from reductio ad absurdum. It might be out of poor taste to do this, but that depends on context.
For example, if you're debating someone in prison who dismisses the contradiction and begins aggressively arguing forward, you can't just walk away because you won. That makes you a punk; and nobody wants to be a punk in prison - so in this case, to prove a point, you are released from the rules of logic and should hammer away.
answered 5 hours ago
J. Mac JordanJ. Mac Jordan
134
New contributor
J. Mac Jordan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
In the context of logical argumentation, they move from being a Logician or a Philosopher to a Rhetorician, a Sophist, or just an Antagonist depending on their goal being dismissive.
Regardless, if you have caught someone in a contradiction in a logical debate and you call it out, the argument is over - if the situation requires them to look or read something because you tell them they have contradicted themselves...and all they need to do is look; refusal is tantamount to them looking and recognizing the contradiction. They are a Sophist, a Brigand, or the Loser of a Debate by Default.
If they dismiss the contradiction without even addressing it, yet aggressively push the argument forward, they are the Loser by Default, but they are also an Antagonist or an Oppugner (this is rooted the same as a Pugilist; therefore, although not widely used, I think it is an apt term).
But if the debate doesn't end once they've contradicted themselves, you essentially have the green light to counter with anything, including an ad hominem attack, because, logically, anything follows from reductio ad absurdum. It might be out of poor taste to do this, but that depends on context.
For example, if you're debating someone in prison who dismisses the contradiction and begins aggressively arguing forward, you can't just walk away because you won. That makes you a punk; and nobody wants to be a punk in prison - so in this case, to prove a point, you are released from the rules of logic and should hammer away.
answered 5 hours ago
J. Mac JordanJ. Mac Jordan
134
New contributor
J. Mac Jordan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 5 hours ago
J. Mac JordanJ. Mac Jordan
134
New contributor
J. Mac Jordan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 5 hours ago
J. Mac JordanJ. Mac Jordan
134
answered 5 hours ago
J. Mac JordanJ. Mac Jordan
134
134
New contributor
J. Mac Jordan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
J. Mac Jordan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
J. Mac Jordan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Brian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Brian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Brian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Brian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488136%2fis-there-a-term-for-someone-trying-to-dismiss-an-argument-without-addressing-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Isn't dismissing an argument without addressing the points dismissing it?
– Azor Ahai
6 hours ago
The (nice) word you are looking for is "jerk." I am not being flip. The only people who do what you describe are jerks. (The assumption here is that the fallacy is real and B has found it in good faith.) There's no special word for what A is doing, but you didn't ask for a word for that. You asked for a word for A. If "jerk" is too tame - it is for me - I'd say "A" is a good start.
– remarkl
3 hours ago