I have way too much time to kill, so I did a SEARCH for the word COHERENT and browsing the threads that popped up I couldn't help but notice that this word is often used inappropiate by people when the thread is not going in their direction, they resort to things like: you haven't presented any coherent arguments Effectively cutting off the debat by implying the other debater is mentaly impaired. This is not only arrogance but we should really ask ourselves How Coherent are these people anyway? if they run out of steam and therefore decide to lable the other debater as irrelevant / irrational/obviously biased/ incoherent etc. etc ????
Actually, that arrogance is an effective arguing technique - even if it is defined as a fallacy. (Ad Hominem, at that.) Going "against the man" has actually won several presidential elections in this country. I disagree with it, but it is quite effective.
On Arguments I've noticed that there are two ways to argue the positivity or negativity of a point. 1-Declaring that something is either cool or stupid in the third-person. "That's stupid. This is dumb. Isn't that just amazing?" etc etc. These are the more common types of arguments, and they annoy me somewhat, because they seem to distance personal opinion from a more widespread opinion. Declaring that everyone hates something is easier to sell than declaring that you hate something. Then there is also 2-Declaring that I hate something in the first person. "I hate this. I think this is stupid." This seems less common, and I'm not sure that it's as effective as the first way of selling a point. This makes the opinion your own, as opposed to the third-person version, which makes it everyone's. It may be more effective if you happen to have a great deal of influence over the person you're conversing with.
Coherent is when you understand your own thought process but disagree with an other's mentally illogical thoughts.
Calling someone incoherent is one of my favourite insults and I simply won't let you take that away from mePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Incoherent individuals are very real and are not even rare. The idea of someone even trying to debate with people while not being able to string a sentence together is irritating(even if hilarious) and trying to argue with one of these people is futile. There is nothing wrong with cutting it short and calling them out on their incoherence. Why continue if they don't even know what they're saying?
