Using a lot of quotes when arguing with people

[Memfis]

What do you think of these people who use MULTIPLE quotes when arguing with people? You see this in forums all the time: two guys are arguing about politics and their posts are all like ONE SENTENCE QUOTE -> REBUTTAL -> ONE SENTENCE QUOTE -> REBUTTAL, etc, etc. It also happens a lot when people do video commentaries on YouTube. Is that really an efficient way to build a conversation? More often than not it seems like these people are just nitpicking the hell out of your words instead of trying to understand the overall message you're trying to convey. What do u think?

[scifista42]

The best is not to argue at all. But it's in the nature of arguing that you want to enforce your statements, and if the other person makes different statements, you want to explain him where he's wrong. Possibly you think that he's wrong in several parts of his statement at once, therefore it's a logical form of an argue to address the problematique statements one by one. I can only think off one better way how to argue, and that's what I said in the first sentence.

[geo]

It makes it more interactive when you pick something apart word by word. It becomes a game for people to fill time in their boring lives.

[Looper]

Memfis said:

More often than not it seems like these people are just nitpicking the hell out of your words instead of trying to understand the overall message you're trying to convey.

I think it's really annoying. Almost anything can be misunderstood if someone wants to do so, and of course people want to do so when their opinion is under fire by someone who has been annoying to you. It's easy to talk bullshit about the words/meaning instead of actually contributing the original conversation.

[j4rio]

Memfis said:
What do you think of these people who use MULTIPLE quotes when arguing with people?

I don't mind.

Memfis said:
You see this in forums all the time:

I think it's quite rare actually.

Memfis said:
two guys are arguing

It usually aren't two guys.

Memfis said:
about politics

It usually aren't politics

Memfis said:
and their posts are all like

It's usually a comment on a site that permits it, posts like these are rather rare, forums aren't message boards after all.

Memfis said:
ONE SENTENCE QUOTE -> REBUTTAL -> ONE SENTENCE QUOTE -> REBUTTAL, etc, etc.

Maybe quoting everything would seem as a pointless space waste while not quoting at all might cause confusion?

Memfis said:
It also happens a lot when people do video commentaries on YouTube.

Yep, I've already covered that.

Memfis said:
Is that really an efficient way to build a conversation?

I doubt anybody in comment sections cares about any sort conversation.

Memfis said:
More often than not it seems like these people are just nitpicking the hell out of your words instead of trying to understand the overall message you're trying to convey.

You don't always have a point. The quoted rebutted sentence may be the flaw of overall message that discredits your whole point.

Memfis said:
What do u think?

I agree.

[scifista42]

^ Thread topic solved.

[Gez]

It's an efficient way to address someone's argument point by point. But when it starts to grow mathematically (reply to one point by making two or more, so the other guy will reply to each of these subpoints with more than one again, etc.) it ends up just being massive walls of text between two jerkbags and everybody else abandons the thread.

[durian]

I depends; if the respondent is using multiple quotes just to maximise their opportunities for making snarky retorts, or in order to make the same point over and over again, then it's annoying.

But then again, if someone has relied on a number of distinct claims in arguing for a complicated point, it can sometimes make sense to respond to those claims separately, and multiple quotes then help to make clear which claims you're responding to and when. This needn't also involve nitpicking.

FWIW the same thing occurs in professional contexts; in giving responses to conference papers, I've often used multiple quotes from the paper I'm responding to, and had them up on a slide for everyone to see - this is pretty standard.

[Maes]

@j4rio: TL; DR

[j4rio]

your loss

[geo]

j4rio said:

your loss

Winner of this thread. No one else can beat J4rio. You can't argue with me. If you argue someone will use the Nazi slippery slope. Stop arguing.

[FireFish]

There is a giant difference between a debate and a childish fight... Many of those extreme quoters are acting like pompous (arrogant) fools in an attempt to make themselves look 'cool' or 'better' than somebody else. They do not compare to people having a nice debate in an exchange of views and information.

But it is not always possible to ignore certain claims and sections in an answer because they might bend the context, or actualy need seperate answers. Eventualy quoting will become necesarry, but with the right intentions and a good mindset it does no true harm.

And there are those people who are so extremely arrogant and self-righteous they just can not stand to read or hear another person his or her opinions... but many of those people end up in a never learning league of their own.

[hardcore_gamer]

durian said:

I depends; if the respondent is using multiple quotes just to maximise their opportunities for making snarky retorts, or in order to make the same point over and over again, then it's annoying.

But then again, if someone has relied on a number of distinct claims in arguing for a complicated point, it can sometimes make sense to respond to those claims separately, and multiple quotes then help to make clear which claims you're responding to and when. This needn't also involve nitpicking.

This pretty much. Sometimes you just want to respond to certain points.

[purist]

I rarely do it because I'm too lazy to make multiple quotes.

Come to think of it I don't often bother with debates or arguments at all. Beyond pointing out I hold an opposing view I don't find any joy in proving myself right. I'm more than willing to leave people to their own opinions or beliefs even if I think them ill informed or outright wrong.

[Linguica]

FYI the sort of behavior you're describing is generally known as fisking.

[Jonathan]

I think it can be useful to provide some structure to a debate, but can easily be taken too far, in which case it becomes very destructive. However, unlike many dishonest debating tactics, it's not always obvious that someone doing it is being deliberately awkward or arguing in bad faith.

As others have said, the problem is two-fold: First, it often involves nitpicking about points of grammar and word definition that bog down the argument and shift it away from what is actually at issue. Secondly, it easily ramifies into an exponential number of sub-arguments, as people respond to one point with many, and so on. This ramification is compounded when it's a debate between multiple people. Everyone ends up responding to everyone else's points, and the result is an explosive web of debate that's impossible to untangle.

I also think it isn't a very efficient way to argue, either for the people arguing or anyone reading along. It appeals to the superficially analytical geek in all of us: The idea of forensically breaking down an argument and responding to each point in turn. But it also makes it difficult to build a single, persuasive and coherent line of argument. Instead, both sides end up repeating themselves and firefighting on minor issues.

I think the best way to deal with it is to make a distinction, even if its just to yourself, about what topic is at issue, and what isn't. Respond to points that are salient to the topic, and ignore ones that aren't. You need to pick your battles, which can easier said than done if someone is trying to provoke you with nitpicking, irrelevant shit, etc. And, just as people can break down what you've said and respond sentence-by-sentence, it's just as easy to do the reverse: Collect their points together and respond with a single paragraph.

[Clonehunter]

I find it funnier when someone uses quotes from "famous personas" in argument, as if because that person was well established anything they say is unequivocally correct or the truth (Or if it's someone they don't like, they believe the quote to be unquestionably wrong). It's probably worse than fisking, but falls under a similar category. Otherwise, I enjoy reading it until it becomes circle-jerking and two dumb blokes spouting off at each other as they wank their e-peens and real-peens to an orgasm superior self-enlightenment.

[Coopersville]

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Hey Einstein!

[40oz]

I've always referred to it as "dissecting posts."

its really dumb. Mrthejoshmon did it to me recently, where a majority of his post was repeated instances of "this part of your post that I selected to respond to doesn't even make sense without the context of the rest of the post so I'm just going to ignore it to assert that its not valuable enough to mean anything to me"

[Cupboard]

I don't like this behavior. I don't have time to argue with everything someone has to say on the internet, just their essential thesis and a few supporting points. Everything else is verbal flourish in cesspool of value-less information. If you can't cut out the fat, you'll never find the lean cut of meat that you want to eat. Some people find chewing over hunks of fat interesting because they get some reward out of it, but I don't have time to read an autopsy report of someone's internet opinion.

[scifista42]

40oz said:

"this part of your post that I selected to respond to doesn't even make sense without the context of the rest of the post so I'm just going to ignore it to assert that its not valuable enough to mean anything to me"

I agree, this is exactly how it shouldn't look like.

By the way, I believe that this part of your post that I selected to respond to makes sense on its own, so my post should be okay. :)

[Caffeine Freak]

I think it's a useful method for debating and arguing, though I agree that it's easy for people to misuse and abuse it, in ways that have already been mentioned. I usually use segmented quotes for the sake of clarity; I want people to know exactly what I'm aiming each part of my response at, especially if it's lengthy posts we're talking about. It's easy for people to go off on tangents or say things that are hard to correlate to any part of what the other party said, and when you get into multi-paragraph posts that cover multiple topics or multiple facets of the same topic, it can be easy to lose track of what the other person is responding to, or what parts of their post(s) you've already addressed.

Of course, some people don't seem to realize that separating quotes into segments doesn't mean you've separated their argument into little pieces; if you're leaving things out in order to make your case, anyone who's really paying attention to what's being said can easily see what you're doing. This is one of those dividing lines that separates a genuine debate from a time-wasting, masturbatory Internet forum contest.

[myk]

Memfis said:
What do you think of these people who use MULTIPLE quotes when arguing with people?

I wouldn't generalize about them. Its like asking, "what do you think of motorcyclists?" "What do you think about girls who like wearing skirts?" "What do you think about politicians?" "What do you think of anime fans?"

Is that really an efficient way to build a conversation?

It can help, and like anything it may be misused.

More often than not it seems like these people are just nitpicking the hell out of your words instead of trying to understand the overall message you're trying to convey.

Only if things are really taken out of context. If not, avoiding separate quotes where specific points or arguments can be treated one by one may also cause confusion on what a reply is really against. It often depends on how the quoted post was written, how unified or divisible its argument is. You could also say that people that never split quotes are lazy, sloppy, or at least don't have much time to devote to their replies. After all, it implies editing the text and adding extra quote tags, as opposed to just quoting everything and writing one chunk of text.

Back when people wrote each other hand-written letters, it was hard to use this device, now it's easier so naturally enough it's an option for whenever it's (considered) appropriate.

[Bucket]

If you find people are over-using quotes when debating with you, you may be guilty of "shotgun argumentation".