Discussion Killers

[SNAFU]

There is a theory that states that any discussion and/or argument, if given enough time, will boil down to one side comparing the other to Hitler/Nazi Germany. For those of you who like to get into heated discussions, I'm sure you can vouch for this observation. This theory goes on to say that the first side that resorts to this tactic has officially run out of valid, practical arguments and can be declared 'the loser' (this rule is of course not valid for discussions about the World War II era).

There are also sub-categories of this theory. The "What if" statement is a discussion killer because, by its very nature, asks both sides to suspend reality. The first person to say "what if" therefore has nothing more to contribute.

The use of loaded words and logical fallacies. These are the most obvious discussion killers, but they are also the easiest to get wrapped up in. A slippery slope is really fun to refute (because it is by definition illogical), but it gets the discussion hopelessly off topic if the fallacy is not immediately recognized as such. Statistics are very often misleading and often fabricated (especially online). Loaded words are powerful words used out of context such as "murders" instead of "deaths." The conditions for murder are specific and must be established before that label can be given.
Curse words are also characterized as discussion killers. A proper argument must be presented professionally and with logic. Example:
"How is the weather up your own ass? This is how it really is..."
Statements such as this show that logic has given way to emotion. Statements like this are not only illogical, they are hurtful, unprofessional and against the NPF rules.

This theory states that a party that performs one of these discussion killers has said all that it can say about this particular topic and should remove itself from the discussion to allow others to form their own opinions free from harassment.

Do you think this theory is a valid analysis of discussion behavior?

I believe that discussions rarely end with a "winner" and "loser." I believe the point of discussion is to see how things look through another pair of eyes. I think people who say, "I don't know how anyone could ever vote for/believe such-and-such thing," haven't thought about the topic long enough.

My girlfriend and I have started using bar association terms when we argue (such as "Asked and answered" and "That's a leading question"). I believe that kind of attitude keeps both of us in check, keeps both of us honest and makes the discussion a bit more relaxed.

What do you think?

[spazzhands]

The bit about Nazi Germany is slightly innaccurate in my opinion, in that its not always the person who brings Naziism into the argument that kills any reason or meaning when it is about one participant's extreme political views on how to run a nation.
For instance:

Person 1: I believe that this religious collective is a threat to the modern world and should be neutralised.
Person 2: Thats pretty much what hitler said!

The discussion in any meaningful form died before it ever began, but person 2 did not kill it.
The problem is that it insults the victim and they then lose all rational thought, so you are right in that its not meaningful or thought-out, But it can be killed before Naziism is brought into it.

The rest is pretty much correct, exept that Discussions rarely have a "winner" or "loser" because people believe only what they want to believe. So nobody gets persuaded by their opponents arguments.

[ChaosMage]

There is a theory that states that any discussion and/or argument, if given enough time, will boil down to one side comparing the other to Hitler/Nazi Germany. For those of you who like to get into heated discussions, I'm sure you can vouch for this observation. This theory goes on to say that the first side that resorts to this tactic has officially run out of valid, practical arguments and can be declared 'the loser' (this rule is of course not valid for discussions about the World War II era).
You are referring to Godwin's Law. People always mis-quote Godwin's Law. Godwin's Law CAN NOT be "invoked" because Godwin's Law says the first person to bring up Nazis will PROBABLY lose, not always, or will definetely or anything else that claims certainty.

[Krylo]

I also disagree with the cussing one. Sometimes cussing can be used to make a point, so long as it isn't directed at the other discussion members.

Case in point: http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=156536&postcount=29

Now edit that to be the first person to cuss at another member of the discussion no longer has a valid point and you're on to something.

After all, persuasive prose is sometimes about arousing emotion and shocking someone into noticing an idea they hadn't considered before. Just presenting it isn't always enough. Of course, you have to be careful when arousing emotions with persuasive prose/speech to be certain you're getting the right ones in the right degrees to just cause someone to look at an idea a bit more carefully and not disregard your arguement out of an emotional reaction.

...I guess, long story short, curse words are ok so long as the person using them knows what they're doing, but that's not usually the case.

[SNAFU]

You are referring to Godwin's Law.

Thank you. I remember reading this theory in a book back when I did debates in high school, but a few hours of googling couldn't find it.

I've noticed that long running or heated arguments do resort to comparing the other side to Hitler (when it is not really applicable). The movie "Office Space" has a really good example of this. Ron Livingston and Jennifer Aniston were arguing about "flair" on a shirt. Ron Livingston moves on the say, "You know the Nazis had flair, but they made the Jews wear it." That's a textbook example of a desperate argument.

[Azisien]

Whether this is "law" or not in some dusty old tome somewhere, I believe that in theory we're already messing up THIS discussion by interchanging discussion and arguement as meaning the same thing. There's a winner and a loser in an arguement, usually (ex: arguement between a male and a female, male loses). A discussion, as I believe Snafu pointed out, is to get different viewpoints and compare them together/to your own. In a proper discussion, everyone should win!

But then...this is a forum, we shouldn't be expecting proper discussions here. Hell, the amount of proper discussions I've had, at least as I define them, have been quite rare. Usually I know the person, and the person is at least slightly open-minded. Such is not really case the on here.