User talk:TParis/Terrible arguments

The below is a compilation of ad hominem arguments that are worthless. The reason these are terrible arguments is that they make no effort at all to refute the central point of your opponent. In essence, if you use these then you've essentially concede that the opposing rationale is stronger than your own. Note: this doesn't apply if the person you are arguing with is being tendentious and has just plainly ignored your real arguments because they really are a liar/biased/leaving Wikipedia/and lost.

You lose
"Oh no, you said 'you lose' first. That must be the end of the discussion now that it's been pointed out who lost." "Oh really? What of the many points that I offered was lacking? Care to even address them?  Or are they too concise and have left you without a counter argument?"
 * You lose...
 * Your argument is pointless...

Avoidance
"You hold just as much go away power as anyone else. If someone is on your talk page, you can ignore them. If someone is on any other page, they have as much right (none really) as you do to be there.  How about you do what is within your control and go away?" "Good" "Good"
 * Please go away...
 * I'm not coming back...
 * I'm leaving Wikipedia...

You're a...
"It helps if you point out exactly what was a lie and offer actual evidence that it was a lie. Insisting it is a lie and offering no proof is equivalent to a word for word argument. You've got nothing else backing up your argument, but you insist the other argument is a lie because they offer nothing to back theirs up." "Yes, yes. The cabal is out in force to protect it's own. Forget the fact that everyone has already pointed out why your claim is wrong and against policy.  That can't possibly be why folks are in defense of a long established user.  It must be that they just don't want to see one of their own go down against your clearly right position." "You must be a big guy to call someone a kid over the internet. Good for you to get there first, you've just won the argument. And by won, I mean you lost because you have no other valid point to make so you've resorted to name calling.  Further, you've resorted to calling someone a kid and you have absolutely no knowledge of the accomplishments or trials in their life.  I really hope you eventually meet that person in real life and they remember what you said." "Because name calling certainly is the mature way to handle immaturity." "Being opposed to your point of view does not make someone biased or non-neutral. Stating that someone is not neutral when they are in fact neutral only goes further to demonstrate your own biases. Having an opinion after taking the time to understand both sides of an issue does not make someone biased.  Bias is a prejudgement about an issue.  It is the different between going into a courtroom and hearing both lawyers give their side of a case, and going into a court room and unilaterally determining guilt.  When you ask for a neutral unbiased editor/administrator/arbitrator, be sure you're not just asking for someone who will look on your favorably.  If your position is 'Any neutral person would see it my way' than you're not looking for a neutral person.  You're looking for someone to see it your way."
 * You're a liar...
 * You're protecting each other...
 * You're a kid...
 * You're immature...
 * You're not neutral/You're biased

Blame
"''The community is losing editors because of a lack of consistency. Some editors (admins and content contributors) are given immense leeway and others are held on a strict rope. Then, in each case, these editors are used as an example of poor enforcement of WP:CIVILITY on both sides.  So whatever side of the issue you are on, it's still your fault that editors are leaving.  If you'd allow compromise, then we could find a middle ground to establish consistency." "Whatever you did was the catalyst that started the drama about whatever you did. Suggesting that it's the community's fault for being upset that you did something that you knew was going to be pointy at best and downright disruptive at worst is a simple blame shift. If you cannot see how your actions had a cause and effect that led to the drama, you may not be mature enough to contribute here." "We do not hold guns to editors heads and make them do the actions they did. All editors are responsible for their own actions..."
 * This is why editors are leaving Wikipedia...
 * The community started the drama, they made a big deal about what I did...
 * It's your fault that User:X did that...

...A perfectly good...
"We wouldn't be discussing the editor if they were perfectly good. Should we have pushed them off the project? Perhaps not.  But let's start from a place of honesty and trust and then try to figure out what to do about it.  Be honest with others about what the editor did and then tell us why we should see it your way.  If they leave, it's because an argument wasn't made in their favor strong enough to keep them here." "We don't delete perfectly good articles. We delete articles with sourcing, we delete articles with notability, we delete articles about important people. But we do not delete perfectly good articles."
 * You've made a perfectly good editor leave the project...
 * You've deleted a perfectly good article...