When you accuse the other side of saying a thing, and instead of allowing the other side to explain or clarify, you immediately launch in on an attack of that particular thing.
“Show, don’t tell.”
When you constantly refer to other books, speakers, videos, etc…“sources of authority” that you claim to be familiar with, without contexualizing or demonstrating an understanding of any of that underlying material. You are substituting an appeal to authority for an actual argument.
“Any man who must say I am the king is no true king”
When you intentionally say the name of your interlocutor incorrectly.
Your opponent never seeming to be able to summarize your position, ever. You constantly having to criticize or refuse to accept ANY other characterization of your position.
The “Lazy Gardener,” or, “Let’s not get in the weeds” strategy
Oftentimes, when the opposition is lacking a thorough understanding of what’s being said, they will oftentimes attempt to obfuscate away from crucial details by claiming that they “don’t want to get into the weeds” or “don’t want to get into technicalities”, even though these particularly technicalities might be essential to justifying or attacking a particular argument.
Warning signs that you may be talking to a “Lazy Gardener” -
When you refuse to engage with the argument and you just make big sweeping moral/virtue signal statements while avoiding any factual response to what was previously said.
.”Debate Edging”
When you constantly stack descriptive claims one over another that are clearly leading into a certain prescription that you never actually verbalize, causing other people to attack you on a prescriptive claim you’ve never made and allowing you to refute their arguments without addressing the obvious implications of what you’re saying.
“Occam’s Mallet”
When someone suggests that simply because a party benefited from something (or because they had something to gain something failing) that there must have been some sort of cohesive plot or scheme in order to bring about that particular thing, often involving highly subversive and unethical means.
“Moral Dodgeball”
Accusing someone of holding a different core value simply because you disagree with an applied position that they have.
“Robinhood Complex”
Always siding with the less powerful entity in any conflict, simply due to the amount of power both sides are capable of exercising.
“The Braveheart”
When someone poses a question about how a person should respond in a situation, where it’s obvious that the person would need to act in a certain way to protect their interests, but the more privileged debater responds with “Personally, I wouldn’t do this…” instead of acknowledging the need for the affected party to respond and protect their interests in a particular way.
“You’re being so weird/obsessed!”
When someone does something that you do exactly and then you accuse them of being weird when they do it, e.g. making clips/compilations of what the other person does and then the other community creates something in response.
“Death by a thousand anecdotes”
When someone is incapable of pushing back factually against a heavily data-driven argument and instead relies upon personal (or popular) anecdotes, or unrelated data, to make their point.
“Tragedy of the Commons Sense”
Basically any time someone invokes common sense because they’re unable to explain or justify their position in any other way.
“I don’t even care.”
“The Webster Warrior” or “The Oxford Offensive”
If you are having a debate around a topic that requires a certain level of complex contextual understanding, but, when confronted and not being able to provide satisfactory justifications for your arguments, you appeal to a dictionary definition.
“Analogy Allergy”
When a person refuses to engage with a hypothetical, not because they’ve demonstrated that the hypothetical is inapplicable to the current disagreement, but because the hypothetical is “wacky” or “crazy.”