There are three arguments I particularly hate. They're overused, misused, and frankly - achieve nothing. It seems I see them all over the internet, and in the real world (which I recommend visiting every once in a while...) If you're anything like me, then not only am I incredibly attracted to you, but I'd also predict that you cringe when you hear the following arguments being used... Hopefully by shedding some light on them, we'll use them a little less, hm?

I was arguing about Global Warming with a friend of mine, who suffixed his argument with: "...if you think about it." In an instant I was cornered. No amount of facts, statistics, studies, references, could refute his argument - because his argument was precisely that, as long as I thought about it, I would agree with him. Any attempt at disagreeing simply meant I had not thought about it. How do you defeat an argument like that? My best attempt was suffixing my argument with "...if you just close your eyes and believe with all your heart."

I was reminded of a recent argument I heard between two other people. Eventually one of them used an example of Hitler, and received the immediate thwarting of 'Aaaah, Godwin's law!'. But, was the argument really thwarted? I mean, since the xkcd comic brought Godwin's Law to mainstream knowledge ( http://xkcd.com/261/ ), I've been hearing countless arguments refuted with it. Unfortunately, xkcd is a misinterpretation of the law. The law does not make any claim to the validity of the use of Hitler and Nazis as an example - only that it eventually will happen. In other words, a good use of the example is no less good because it was used. And there are reasons why it is a good example - it's universally understandable, it is a real-world example of extremism, and so much more. All one really stands to gain from pointing out Godwin's law is, in the off-chance the other party doesn't know of the law, the temporary feeling of knowledgeable superiority.

Finally there's the burden of proof argument. Now this is a big one. It deals with one person making an unsubstantiated claim to another who may have more sources, scientific facts, and the usual standards that help one's argument. Often, I'll hear the second party - the well informed party - refute the grandiose arguments of the first party with either: "Prove it," or otherwise informing them the burden of proof lies with them. But really, does it? Consider who you are arguing with here. It may be an argument founded on ignorance, and how likely do you think someone is going to research their own ignorance? There's a reason why they got to where they are. But besides that point, there was a time when you too were ignorant of something. And your hand was held as you were lead through the research papers, the statistics, and that which we call "facts." Maybe it hasn't been a while. Maybe you've learned to do your research - but there was a time. Now of course, even if you show someone ignorant claims countering their argument, they may be unphased (it all comes down to their ignorance quotient) - but at least you took a better approach than leaving the burden to them. The burden is in fact on the one who is "better informed." Otherwise, how would any of us know anything? How would anyone of us get anywhere? Einstein became Einstein because he published 3 groundbreaking papers in which he took the burden upon himself to inform. Put simply: it should not be on the one trying to persuade - afterall, everyone tries to persuade. It should be on the one who has the facts, has the knowledge.

I mean, think about it. Imagine the kind of world we'd be living in if no one took it upon their shoulders to explain the wrong doings of Hitler. If you think it'd be a better world... prove it.