Shared publicly  - 
Web site simplifies argumentation.

Most people who argue and debate online, including here on Google+, commit standard, well-understood logical fallacies.

The problem with this is that debates never go anywhere, and they take forever to get there.

By calling people on their logical fallacies, you can shorten arguments, and everyone can learn from debate.

Great site.
Leslie P's profile photoAllen Marshall's profile photoHacim Llih's profile photoMoi Feret's profile photo
Nice find. Thanks, Mike.
This is FANTASTIC!! I always have a hard time remembering all the Logical Fallacies and this will help me remember and refer to them quickly.

Oh, this looks fun. #trending
It shortens arguments all right...the other person stomps off in a huff.
"debates never go anywhere, and they take forever to get there" does not sound very logical to me. Just saying :-)
No true Scotsman would click on that link.
I reject your logic, and substitute my own.
It seems to be missing one for "Your argument is invalid, my hair is a bird." Not sure it'll make it on the internet without that.
"I see your pointed finger and raise you a deadly snowflake."
Great site. I try to make a comment then respond to the critics response (if there is one) and move on no matter what they say. That works for me. I don't think it is practical to try to change someones mind especially on hot button topics. It is amazing how easy I can get sucked in or thrown off topic as a Google+ newbie. I do listen to their response though and try to keep an open mind.
It can be valuable to speak out and disagree in a forum, even if you don't expect to change the person's mind that you are responding to. You are really talking fence sitters in the audience, not the die-hards. Just one voice of healthy doubt can make others feel free to ask the same questions, even if the person you refuted will never get it.
I plan to reply to every conversation I have with this website.
I'm loving this site. LOVING it. Although, as a conservative, it isn't hard to miss the left-wing, anti-religious tone in most of their examples, but it's a great tool, regardless. Thanks for posting.
My freshman year logic class! I've been looking for this information. thanks for sharing
I was actually + the statement you made! TOO FUNNY....arguing online is ridiculous to begin with....ha ha ha
I'll have to keep this handy as I've found myself guilty of a few out of habit.
This works well, since everyone agrees to use logic. Err...

It IS quite helpful, but arguing logically is not the same as arguing effectively. Nor is arguing ethically the same. I'm not defending lowering the discourse, but I am saying ethics and logic can be a good way to lose certain situations (politics) and that's part of the problem...
Bram: HUH? LOL.....i kind of see where you are coming from though...
Great to see these tricks and traps have been formally identified and tabulated in an easily understandable way. Very useful
Bob Lai
I imagine that people will take to this as cheerfully as they accept criticism of their spelling and grammar.
hai uncle ge,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/////////
Hmm...could probably be renamed as "Ways to Win an Argument When You're Wrong"
My experience - when you call someone on a logical fallacy, the debate simply becomes over which logical fallacies the opposition has committed, and if each side actually understands the logical fallacies they are accusing each other of. "That isn't a straw-man - but you've just made a red-herring." "Oh, would you stop with your appeals to authority in accusing me of begging the question".
When will we get these icons as shortcuts for G+?
But for real, I simply do not let anybody go any further in the discussion until they understand and address where they made a flawed statement, no matter how is the lightning there next flawed point they make is. I posted a youtube video I made about that very tactic a long time ago in my feed.
i like turtles 2
where's the martini icon?
+Maxwell Bean If we pointed [fallacies] out to everyone I doubt we will have any friends
On the short term it will surely have a negative impact on the willingness of people to argue with you. Who actually does like being shown wrong. But on the other hand it would be great if we became more aware of our own fallacies so we can avoid them and this way were to adopt a much more efficient way of communication and discussion. The ultimate goal is not to use the symbols any more, because you don't need to.
no thanks, not human nature
This subject is my forte, really.
I've always felt that if the majority of society took the time to understand these basic fallacies that many of our hangups would simply vanish and that a new happening of growth would usher in something fresh to argue about for a change. Hows THAT for over optimistic.
I made a recent post about this as well. In short, it all comes back to defensiveness when we feel an imaginary threat at the moment we feel like we might be wrong. The more you practice using that defensive feeling as a signal to admit you could be wrong, the easier it gets to be more careful about making claims in the first place.
I often refer to logical fallacies in internet conversations, but logic has little impact on the feeble minded. Much better to use the force.
Now I know why no one likes me. I wish someone had mentioned this earlier.
I think toast solves most arguments. With butter and marmalade, preferably.
This need a spanish translation!!! and other languages too :D
A lot of this starts with the assumption that human beings are rational creatures.

They are not. They are emotional creatures that can be rational.

However, in many instances, emotion trumps reason.

Useful tool, but a lot of arguments exist not for rational reasons but for emotional ones. Getting to the "truth" is often an excuse for the argument, not a resolution.

Second, it is often not what is true that wins out but what is believed. When dealing with how people think and act, it is absolutely important to realize that belief and emotion win more arguments than "truth".

Though even truth is subjective anyway...since it is a product of our perceptions.
Sara T
veri nace
Oi não entendi nada, mas gostaria de ser sua amiga aqui no Brasil.
Ou Ija
#yes #this repeat: ad nauseum
Micheal, indeed. It all comes back to defensiveness, a factually childish behavior (literally, a carry over from child hood when we were so profoundly affected by being caught doing something wrong)
+Bram Warrick that makes sense, but if an argument goes off the logic rails I leave it.

Of note common fallacies are more often considered regarding debate than arguments.
Great. Now people who frequently commit these fallacies will be preoccupied with trying to label their opponents with one of these first to weasel out of the true discussion.

Maybe that should be another fallacy... call it "Posted First!": A fallacy where a person incorrectly labels their opponents logic as a well-known logical fallacy in an attempt to end the discussion before they lose the argument.
I will be hanging a full-size printout of this in my office and will keep looking at it intermittently when someone starts to argue with me
I'm about to win so many internets with this!
Gods would not argue.. they'd just hit you with a plague or twenty
We should replace the Ten Commandmesnts with this. It would be only logical.
i learned about these in a critical thinking class and am happy i did.
I appreciate those Fallacies. some people realy dont know when they are lied to.
J Mat
I am not sure about this. If I tell you that gas prices, the national debt and unemployment are higher now than when Obama took office is this not a FACT? I had some person refer me to this site when confronted with this.
Is it me, or does Aristotle look pissed off?
hey whatsup man how are you doing im sorry i have other name this is a fake
there is nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the logical fallacies of others! ha! i loved Clerks.
OH YEAH!!? Well. You're and idiot... I'm just stupid. (you mean like that?)
I'm very well qualified and I disagree!
Assuming that people want to debate (as opposed to proselytize) and/ or want to learn anything in the process is probably a....fallacy.
Great thing about logical fallacies is that they cover about any argument one could think of in any debate... So if you ever feel like you're losing a debate, you can always accuse your opponent of using a logical fallacy =D

I'm really not a fan of the concept, but it's still a good site, so have a plus one !
+Suma Chatterjee == 20th April , 2012 --- +Mike Elgan .... You are speaking fallacious ... while you point out "Debate" , you emphasize on shortest possible answer from participants . Pls don't preach the preachers . You must try to obey what we discuss with thorough knowledge in us . I am sure , you lack thorough knowledge over subjects . At this juncture , what you should do is that , try to improve patience , follow carefully , read more than once -- even , 2/3 times to acquire what we mean . There's always a deep meaning , when a preacher explains something . Lots of reasons cause hamper in acquiring knowledge in childhood . Even , we don't konw all the subjects . That way , I feel grateful , when somebody explains elaborately what I don't know . Pls don't try to be oversmart .
Here's a fun drinking game - put on your favorite news network and take a drink whenever you hear a logical fallacy. Depending on the network, you'll be smashed in minutes!
I'm glad this is on here, but you know that people will totally abuse this.
To those saying that pointing out these logical fallacies will end an argument, why not tell them the flaw in their reasoning instead of labeling their illogical reasoning. Example:instead of saying. "you did the no true Scotsman fallacy" tell them the specific lack of soundness in their argument. This, in my opinion, will be less offensive because labeling their errors, again in my opinion, makes people feel small,stupid,and offended. Now i realize that pointing out a logical fallacy with a label can bring up the appeal to emotion fallacy.
Another note: Two people commented on wanting this translated into a different language ( 1 Portuguese, 1 Spanish.) Use google translate i guess.
To make things clear don't use the labels in the website. Use the website to teach yourself the possible logical fallacies you can face to easily dispatch an argument, but without labeling!!! This is a tip to speed up a debate as stated in the OP and to not piss someone off. Remember, just because you/they used an logical fallacy doesn't mean their/your point of view is wrong. ala The Fallacy Fallacy.
Thanks a lot. I no longer have anything to say.
Tyra Ench said: "isn't logic just knowledge derived from experience?"

Which I reply, NO. This statement would qualify for a couple of the logical fallicies described on the website.
This is almost as good as the internet itself
this probably was posted
under good intentions
it will not work well
we will only end up
with more idiots who think
they know everything
+David Payer , now I'm curious: which logical fallacies do you think would apply to "isn't logic just knowledge derived from experience?"
I liked the Anecdotal Fallacy, because it makes it sound as if it was actually easy to make conclusions from statistical data.
For instance, "smoking is bad for you". Ok, I wouldn't dispute that, but what really matters is just how bad? Because the popular understanding is "it will give you the cancer". It won't. It will raise your risk by a certain factor. Like not exercising everyday, sitting for long hours, being male, and so on.
Herein lies the rub: Humans aren't logical. We have the capacity for logic, but we are not innately logical. We are, however, masterful feeling machines.

In fact, it's been scientifically shown that your decision making is negatively impaired (even non-social decisions) by damage to the emotion centers. Emotions and feeling determine our axioms - and logic is more procedural from there - and emotions shape the desired outcomes of our logic... It's all wrapped in an emotion tortilla.

The degree to which the logical fallacies work is directly related to the degree to which a person is emotionally attached to logic. If that attachment isn't there, you won't get far, imo.

We really are feeling machines. This is why logical fallacies exist - they work. They may not be logical. Or ethical - when done on purpose. But they are effective.

Can't refute the point - attack the person. Can't point to data, appeal to "authority." It works. Ask climate scientists. Ask a lot of people.

Learn critical thinking skills, teach yourself to recognize even the subtlest strawman attack... but don't expect logic to win. Only logic, wrapped in emotional reasoning wins.

Heck, you could argue that's part of why Mike Elgan has the following he does. He's logical, but he's not just that. Logic is only a tool - and it CAN'T be your only one.

+Ann Jarman
i suppose this is
in general
but if logic is ur only tool
and no other factors exist
in ur argument
logic will win more often
the main issue is most ppl
rely mainly on emotions
and have many issues
with seeing connections
and utilizing logic in a effective manner
plz note that the two previous
somewat used
the texas sharpshooter
to come up with that
because i dont have the time
nor the mental capacity
to cover the majority of
general possibilities
+Kaoru Liu I think my point is not a dichotomy, but that balance is necessary. In the same way that someone reacting almost entirely based on emotion is unlikely to make the best of decisions - or arguments...

Someone relying almost exclusively upon logic is failing also. Humans are not so binary. To persuade a human, persuade all of them.
+Ricardo Dirani
btw logic being derived from experience
is completely untrue
that would be wisdom

logic is sorta like experience or the idea of knowledge
its not derived from anything specifically
its just there...
it is more likely idiocy
is derived from experience.....
in terms of practicality
relying upon logic only
is the best way
in order to persuade
an entire group
assuming they are somewat dependent
on emotions
u cannot use emotion
only logic.
by using emotions
u will be turning some against u
+Kaoru Liu I don't dispute it's untrue. I dispute that it is covered in any of those fallacies on the site, let alone in a couple of them. A fallacy isn't just a false statement, it's a flawed method. The statement itself could just as well be true.
o oops
while going on a relevant topic
i forgot to answer ur question
+Ricardo Dirani i cant tell what ur saying
in the previous comment
there is no clear stand
unless someone is completely
based on logic
or an einstein level genius
there is nearly no way
u can argue
without commiting some fallacy
though this includes the legit ones
it is interesting to note
that some of the fallacies
contain fallacies
Guess this means you have to be predisposed to arrogant assumptions that you are right and the other person is wrong because they believe differently than you do. This is also know as being a bigot.
+Kaoru Liu
I'm saying
the proposition
"logic is just knowledge
derived from experience"
might be untrue
and yet not be
a fallacy.
+Ricardo Dirani it does have fallacies btw
first and foremost
and the one that everyone makes
is that it doesnt take into account
all other factors/sources (in this case)
while all ppl do it to some small degree at least
the ideathat
logiic is knowledge derived from experience
lacks to consider many other sources that
this "knowledge"
could be derived from
I've used this website all day in my post on religion vs gay acceptance.... it seems the haters don't want to read the website...sniff

I love it completely. thank you +Mike Elgan
Cool. I see so many people I know in this. I B 1.
+Amanda Blain
u cannot argue logically
against religion in general
its a belief system
not a logic based system
therefore u cant use logic
to argue against it
kaoru gots it (philosophy)
+Tom Peranteau
r u talking to me?
if so, please explain how
ur a hypocrite
sup david

i realize that this is not the place to comment like that
o well
+Tom Peranteau
i understand perfectly wat u posted
u didnt understand what i posted
i asked who u were talking to
I go by Socrates, and I don't approve of this message! I love going over everything people say because for those who really care, they can learn things about themselves. Of course not at that moment, but once they contemplate what was said, they could... Sometimes LoL +Eric Williams that's how people usually leave when they're done talking with me :-P
Mike's website is a valuable resource, but not a panacea. Any of the arguments you see online have emotional as well as rational components. Logical fallacies are rational, but committed in service of emotional aims.

Politics and religion are prime examples. They live on a gut level, not a rational one. Arguments about them are rooted in the arguer's worldviews. We all have a largely unconscious position that defines who we believe ourselves to be, where we think we fit into the world, and how the world works. The basics of the position are in place early, like between 5 - 7 years of age, and once we have adopted a position, our principal goal is to defend it. Evidence we are correct will be clutched to our chest. Evidence that doesn't support our position will be ignored or rejected, often violently. In such cases, questions of our beliefs can be interpreted as attacks on us.

Pointing out a logical fallacy in someone's argument on a topic like that is unlikely to get you anywhere. For example, try telling a firm believer in an organized religion that there is no God, everything they've been taught is nonsense, and everything they think they know is wrong. You can talk about logical fallacies in their argument till you're blue in the face, but you won't alter their argument or affect their belief. That stuff lives on a gut level and logic has nothing to do with it.
+Kaoru Liu I don't think that the statement (hold on a sec...slow phone)... "logic is just knowledge derived from experience," can have a fallacy because it is not a debate. It's just someone's stance/ opinion without anything to support it. It was almost a guess in the OP
+Kaoru Liu Aw, children say the funniest things... Does it make you feel all grown up to spew tripe? Nothing intellectual from you? Didn't think so... LOL!
+Tom Peranteau
obviously u view me as a stereotypical
little child,
well screw u.
u could have a phd for all i care
and ur mind would still be inferior to mine
+Dennis McCunney
pointing out logical fallacies do work
but only if it disputes the other persons statement
take for example ur statement on whether
fallacies actually help
u are using texas sharpshooter
taking only one example and viewing that
as proof that u r correct
i just disputed ur statement
by pointing out ur logical fallacy
therefore sometimes it does work
+Kaoru Liu LOL You ARE a stereotypical child. Sad that I had to point that out to you, but I somehow think it has been pointed out to you before, as you seem to have isues with it. You are cute in your responses, though. Please continue to entertain me with your juvenile thoughts.
+Dennis McCunney When it comes to religion it is the most difficult thing to change someone's mind but not impossible as i have seen it done before. In either case those who truly believe will know that religion is not a debate or argument but just faith. Depending on how strong that faith is tells you how long you can "stand strong" till you change your mind and loose faith. This is just my opinion. I also think that even if you win a debate the other person has made little cracks in your point of view if they made logical sense on some of their points. I am sure some people who want to be better people will realize that some of their strongly held beliefs might be flawed and will consider changing their beliefs. (I disagree with the "often violently.") This is how people change and it happens all the time.
In general you have to acknowledge that you might be wrong sometimes, but it is the job of the person you're debating with to prove that. To be a better person acknowledge we humans are not perfect and allow yourself to change if you realize you are flawed instead of reacting angrily. You can only become a better person like this.
+Tom Peranteau
think wat u wish
i do not have issues with anything
nor is my mind that of a stereotypical child or even a stereotypical
intelligent child

please refrain from ur childish comments
and i wil stop pointing out
my superior intellect compared to urs
im sorry that it annoys u
+Tom Peranteau Appeal to emotion fallacy is all that you are doing. You have the right to write what you want but you are making yourself look like an asshole. I don't see why you couldn't have cleared up the confusion and and taken being called hypocrite like a man instead of replying like a child.
+Kaoru Liu It's really difficult to follow what an illiterate in typing. I get that you don't know how to spell or punctuate, let alone how to capitalize, so I try to accommodate that. But it is still difficult to understand what illiterates are getting at sometimes.

I think I get that you understand that you are wrong on things and sorry for how disrespectful you approached the trading of ideas. I forgive you for that. Just learn that you should respect others' ideals in the future, and not be an intellectual bigot.
arun kb
exactly it is..
+Tom Peranteau
since i dont feel that there is any need
for capitalizing, or punctuation
to accomodate ppl
i change lines at pauses
and at clauses
+Edwin Avila Edwin, you are a victim of your own perceptions, and have little understanding of reality. Perhaps that is also a product if your tender young age, so don't take offence when I tell you that you need to grow up before you enter into a big boy discussion.

Good luck with that, and get to bed early so that you're not late for school.
u really cant express sarcasm
can u on social media....
+Bram Warrick Well said. Do you think it is possible to be so emotionally attached to logic or some sort of other system in your brain to the point of becoming 99% identical to a logical machine?
Oh, sarcasm isn't the issue. The issue is a lack of intellect on your part.

I get that you didn't address me directly, as you were scared that I might respond. LOL
+Tom Peranteau
everyone is and will be a victim of their own
until cyborgs are created
and ppl are able to comprehend
all possible perspectives and viewpoints
And no morals, and no governess of thought, and no self control. Then everyone will have their own perception of what is right, and yours will take a second-seat to theirs.

Good luck with that. No standard equates to anarchy.
There you go +Tom Peranteau can't learn can you. If you really believe I have little understanding why don't you argue it? Instead you try to antagonize me like the immature adult you are. You think you are grown up because you can insult me then you are mistaken. Maybe you are just lazy.
+Tom Peranteau
u lack insight and perspective
i gave u the hint of sarcasm since i realize
ur mind isnt as capable as mine
but u still didnt realize my point
well let me tell u directly:
ur an idiot
and inferior to me
in terms of intelligence, perception, and a whole bunch of other stuff
that i dont wish to embarrass a
sensitive idiot like u

and the point of not addressing u directly
is becuz its a universal topic
not just designated for u
u conceited brat
+Edwin Avila I don't argue with children, but try to make them understand. Your perception of immature really doesn't matter, as you have none. I don't have to "think" I am grown up, as I have proven it in life. I get that you have to battle against it, because you have not.

Children are like that, though.
+Kaoru Liu Please do tell me how I lack what you state. You, in your early 30's, may feel something about someone older, but you have no way of knowing anything without their wisdom. And in your speculation, you prove that you are too young to know anything about that of which you speak.
+Tom Peranteau Wow nothing you wrote makes sense. How can you make someone understand without arguing, which is what you are doing here which again contradicts the fact you don't argue, with your perception of me, a child. I have no perception of what immature means? The fact that i stated what i believe to be immature means I have perception. You do realize that you can be immature in some aspects of life and be grown up in others. I don't want to put time and effort to show you what immature and perception means as to back up my point because you are not worth it. Battle against proving that i am grown up? You don't know a thing.
+Edwin Avila Hey, perhaps one day you'll understand, or perhaps not. Mean time, the fact that you think it doesn't make sense only means that you don't understand it.

Wisdom comes with age. One day you might be able to master it. Right now I think you're a bit premature.
+Tom Peranteau Finally something logical. Yes I agree that I don't understand what you wrote, but you didn't bother to debate my points. I agree that I have yet to master wisdom. With your last post, I think you have finally learned something. I see no insults in your last post. Congrats.
+Edwin Avila Funny seeing a child's perception of my comments, as I raised mine years ago and had forgotten how juvenile they could be. Thanks for the laugh!

I'm always learning, but not from those that know less. My wisdom does not come from the youth that speak from their lack of, but from those that went before me.

One day you might learn that, and then you will be able to move yourself forward. Until then you will probably be stuck within the confines of the mediocre that is within your reach.
+Tom Peranteau There you go again,indirect but still. You do realize that sometime's you need reminding of some lessons and If a child has recently mastered that lesson they can teach or remind you that particular lesson. I know you have seen it happen but this is just an example of countless others that say you can learn from anyone no matter their age. You also know that older people can be wrong. No one is perfect after all. At least I am open minded with the fact that I can learn something from anywhere or anyone no matter what their age. You are the one stuck in mediocre walls as i have logically debated and you have barely done that.
+Edwin Avila You're boring me. As is the case with some of your underwits here on Google, you lack anything interesting to add to a conversation.

Contact me when you grow up, and perhaps you'll be in a position to learn that with you lack.
+Bram Warrick I have now followed Mike Elgan with the purpose of learning how to balance logic with emotional reasoning. Do you have any debates in mind that showcase this. If not I'll look some up.
+Edwin Avila I approve of your message! I do believe you can learn from anyone regardless of age. My favorite example to give is a philosophy teacher I had who had a PhD in philosophy from Harvard, he was stumped by an awfully good question about Descartes, and when asked what HE thought Descartes might have answered, he said "I don't know, I'm not him." When I pushed "Well what do you think he might have said?" he kept repeating the same thing over and over again. So what good is a PhD from Harvard when you can't even make a guess? "You are allowed to have food and drinks in class, as long as you have a PhD in front of your name."
" PHD ", .
stands for this person is half dumb . where the rest of are ridiculously dumb. what you thought he would just know every thing... .? you shouldve went further than that.... you shouldve asked what what God was doing at that moment ..... ???
Sure you can learn from anyone of any age, but the quality and content are what is in question. "Learning" from someone that is too young to know of what they speak, simply speaks of the moronic values that you hold. Wisdom does not necessarily come from your degree, although I hold one, but from your life experience. When you have little life experience, you have little to offer.

Listen and learn, my young friends, lest you continue to sound like the morons that you sound like.
That is the thing though. There are people who are young who have gone through some profound experiences that a number of older people will never go through. Examples: a 10 year old cancer patient trying to live life to the fullest.
A young war veteran who has learned too much way too early or even for that matter things that should not be confronted at all.
A 25 year old war veteran and a 10 year old can have good quality and content in teaching a number of lessons.

In the end no matter what the lesson the quality and content is made by how you perceived the lesson, how you react to it, what conclusions you get from it, and other critical thinking you do to elaborate a simple lesson that a youngster can share with you.Therefore you can start learning a part of a lesson from even the actions of a new born baby, such as a smile or the intimacy it shows with it's mother. The quality depends on what you see and think from it. Damn I had another good point but i forgot. oh well.

P.S. Who remembers the scene from The Hurt Locker where the protagonist is with his child who is playing with a Jack in the BOX, i think. He says something to the degree that he only enjoys a few things in life now but his son finds happiness and a lot of things. This debate reminded me of that scene.
Either way this is just one example of how you can learn something from anyone.
Found what is said in the scene
He does realize something about his life with his son. Whether what he learned is right or wrong is something else. The quality of the lesson here is high because it talks about the things you love in life and how there might be less as you progress through it.
+Edwin Avila The short answer is, "no, though it may seem that way."

A better answer is somewhat autobiographical. I wanted to be like Spock. Smart, logical, disciplined... But the more I read on reason and how the mind/brain works (actual science: Antonio Damasio mostly), the more I realized that feeling and emotion underpin pretty much all conscious thought.

Think of the brain structure and evolution... Each new skill relies upon past skills, leveraging them. Feeling and emotion define our axioms and our end points. Logic if frequently a tool to reconcile those, especially in areas where there is no objective truth.

And when it comes to logic, there rule of GIGO applies even to accurate logic. Neglecting emotion is a good way to get your axioms wrong.

Posting from mobile, please forgive typos.
+Edwin Avila Re: Mike Elgan. Not exactly and it's more in evidence topically. He draws good inferences and deductions regarding tech, and his writing style seems unstilted. When he's participating in discussion he's fair, balanced.

Worldview topics are a small percentage of his posts. Most are tech. But I do believe my assertion stands.
Greg S
A lot of people are responding to this (and nizkor, my favorite) as if the arguments there can be used to instantly "win an argument." The way that I find them useful is to point out when someone you're trying to have a discussion with is using techniques that don't advance their point of view - and if they change their technique, maybe it will. (Of course, that can also demonstrate that they want to advance their point of view in an irrational fashion, e.g. by loud assertion. That's also useful to know, as maybe it's time to disengage :) )
Add a comment...