I am a pretty argumentative guy. I relish a good brainshaking argument. I like my ideas shaken , stirred..turned on my head . I like being given a perspective I missed out. I am an "argument for arguments sake" guy. I like to taste a sentence...In the sense that I like rolling it and looking at it from different sides. While I am lucky I have met a few guys who do not take arguments too personally ..I have been pissed off by a few "types" . I will try defining them
1. "I am important" Guys. These guys have had a mediocore life and have hit a jackpot once which is the defining moment . So they play it around with such aplomb that suddenly their argument becomes too personal. If you attack the logic they get sentimental.
2. "The Righteous" . The second variety are the "ethical" paper tigers. Their base logic is that the world is governed by the ethical code of conduct. So if its not "right" its obviously not true. They re most of the times the most hypocritical. And arguing with them is like having a bag of deep fried and stale chips. The taste is bad and you are left with bad farts.
3. "The super data banks" . They are one of the funniest because they tie themselves up in their own arguments by generalising facts. So if the sun rises in the east today..they are sure it will rise tomorrow and for a billion tomorrows(believe me there is a slim possibility that you wont see the sun tomorrow..there is no 100% chance that it will rise). Now these guys draw upon facts,documentaries and science to prove their case. Most often they borrow quotes and base their argument on authority. For example "bertrand russel said so.." hence its infalliable. But neverthe less they are the least bad of the lot. You may not gain in logic but yes an open minded discussion is still possible...
Now I come to the most virulent of the specis..The "borrowed arguments dealers"
4. Borrowed argument dealers. These are by far the most irritating of the lot. A strain of the super data banks these state "borrowed logic" from others without stating the source.
They are the most confident because they "know". They pick up argumental logic from religious gurus , management books , tv shows and present it. Since its a valid argument..sometimes I am stunned by the logic. But when reality dawns on the copyright..I am dissapointed.
The best part of the whole story is that majority of arguments spoil sports are the "borrowed" variety. And the most vociferous. They cant diffrentiate between a quarrel and logic. And when their sources are revealed they become violent.
As a non-violent man..I have decided that I will do my best to avoid them.