Arguments that annoy me, mandarin edition

I've started studying mandarin again.  As part of this, I've been encouraged to write my normal type of writing and translate it into mandarin.  The original English post is reproduced first, followed by the translation.  To aid my studying, I've bolded words that are new to me.  I originally wrote this post in February of this year, link here.

I love debate.  Once upon a time, I liked competitive debate, too, and thought that I liked pounding other people's arguments into the dust.  However, as time went on I realized that what I enjoyed was not winning per se, but having conversations with intelligent people.  People with poor argumentation and poor logic not only made for poor debate, but simply annoyed me.

To this day, there are few things that annoy me more.  So I'm going to blog about them. Hah.

1.  "It is better to be consistent than correct"

Hypocrisy is an irrelevant ad hominem, but I see this all the time.  Essentially, someone argues that because person/country/organization A has done something before, but subsequently advocates against it, the argument is invalid.  A is hypocritical!  Common examples:

• The US has violated someone's sovereignty before, therefore its advocacy against a violation of other people's sovereignty is invalid.
• <insert political party here> did something in the past, therefore its current stand against the practice is invalid.
• You once believed this, but now you've flip-flopped and your argument is weaker because of it.

I could go on and on.  This is a poor argument.  Accusations of hypocrisy are often valid, but the only thing that they should do is cast aspersions on the character of the advocating party - they never have any relevance to an argument itself, unless that argument is about a person or organization's character.

When presented in simple terms as above, it's easy to spot how fallacious an accusation of hypocrisy is.  I more frequently see it presented in forms more difficult to recognize.  For example, if I were to hypothetically accuse the Republican party of being obstinate in their use of the filibuster in the Senate of the US, I might receive the following reply:

"But when the Democrats were in the minority during the Bush years, they also heavily used the filibuster and justified it by claiming that they were doing the job of the minority in protecting their interests, and you didn't complain then!"

Sound familiar?  Doesn't address the issue at hand, doesn't address anything but the parties to the argument (the Democrats and the proposer), allegation of hypocrisy.  While pointing out how hypocritical a group or person is might cast aspersions on their character, it has zero to do with the argument.  Instead, it's a statement that amounts to "it is better to be consistent than correct," or, alternatively, "consistency is a prerequisite for having a valid argument."

Top places I see that argument:

• Anti-colonial related rants
• Chinese uberpatriots
• American political debate 

 Translation:

我从高中以后爱讨论。从前，我也爱讨论比赛，因为我觉得把别人的论据击开很乐趣。但是，参加几个讨论比赛后，我发现我不是喜欢赢了讨论比赛，我喜欢的是跟聪明的人谈话。参加着用低质量的低质量的论据和推理不过把讨论变成真没意思，也简单地打扰我。

到现在，几乎没什么比较打扰我。所以我先要在网上对这事发泄一下。哈。

1. "一致比正确好“

伪善大是人身攻击，但是我还常常看人用伪善似乎是效力的论据。伪善的用法就是这样：A反对别人的行为，但是有时候A跟别人有一样的行为。A很伪善！比如说：

• 美国侵犯过外国的主权，所以美国的论据反对别的国家的侵犯主权行为就无效了。
• 什么政党以前的行为象他门现在的反对，所以他们的反对就无效了。
• 你以前相信这个论据，但是你推翻了你的决定，所以你现在的论据更无效。

这样真是低只来年个的推理。指责谁的伪善是理由的批评，可以把注意力吸引到他的坏个性，但是除了他的个性以外，指责伪善没有解决他的论据有什么问题。象这样报告，很容易明白这样的想法真荒谬。我比较常看这个论据用其他的，比较难认出的形式。比如说，假如我指责美国的共和党阻挠什么不喜欢的议案通过是很不负责人，我可能有这样的回答：

在Bush总统的年代民主党也是少数，他们也跟今天的共和党一样阻挠议案通过，解说也是为了防守少数人的利益，但是那时候你一点都没有抱怨！

这样的看法熟悉吗？没有对别人的看发有什么解决，没有说有什么不同意，只对对方的人指责伪善。这样的论据就是说“一致比正确好”，或者说“有一致才有好的论据”。废话。

我最常看这样的论据是对按照几个样子：

• 反殖民注意咆哮
• 中国五毛咆哮
• 美国政治了解