I was thinking that something that may lead to better discussions was to compile a list of "fallacies" or "rhetorics" that are non-constructive. I have seen this on both sides.

  1. One fallacy that I see a lot is "Tu Quoque": the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

  2. Another thing I see a lot is the use of Red Herrings in rebuttals: The logical fallacy of arguing a minor point and ignoring the main point occurs when a side issue receives the focus in order to shift attention away form the real issue. This is a kind of red herring.

  3. Related to the above point is dismissing an argument by dismissing whole subject bodies. Sometimes when a social sciences paper is posted, the other side will simply say that they don't trust all Social Sciences.

  4. Nitpicking on studies

    While this is relative, nitpicking at details of the study to dismiss it entirely is not productive. NO study will ever be perfect. Saying that a study only had 1000 participants is a critique, but does not totally dismiss it. Even if a study had 100,000 participants, that is a minute fraction of the human population.

  • Please realize that studies don't have unlimited resources to control every aspect. A better form of critique on a study is to link a study that conflicts with the first

Anyways, both sides add some examples of fallacies/rhetorics/annoyances that you see. Hopefully whenever an instance of this occurs from now on, we can just link this post or another so we don't waste time.

Edit

More:

  • Ad hominem

  • Strawmen

  • Using an exception to argue against the rule

  • Naturalistic Fallacy

  • A naturalistic fallacy is the argument that something is inherently good because it arose from nature. When applied to TRP: Even though evolutionary psychology is a sound description of the adaptations that the human mind has made in response to sexual and natural selection, behaving in accordance with the tenets of evo-psych is not good or moral by virtue of it being the "natural" thing to do. (/u/ReddishBlack)

  • Just world fallacy

  • Any number of fallacies detailed here: http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1420756844457.jpg or here: http://imgur.com/a/QDbyt#5