[NT] How to argue like an NT

[Mycroft]

How to argue like an INTP:

Let us define "God" as "that which exists". Therefore, God exists.

How to argue like an INTJ:

(Insert multi-page histrionics peppered with similes and co-opted aphorisms). Therefore, whatever point it was I was trying to make. I'm pretty sure I had one.

How to argue like an ENTJ:

Let us define what I just shouted as true. Therefore, what I just shouted is true. (Flex a bit, give that argumentative little dweeb from accounting a thousand-yard stare. Yeah. Let's see one of these pricks try to argue now.)

How to argue like an ENTP:

(Refute an example.) Therefore, there is at least one semantic quibble that can be construed as an exception to something you only mentioned tangentially, rendering every element of your argument false. (Flash a toothy grin. Yeah. This high school debate is all you. Mental high fives.)

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

I would like to taunt you.. but I like the list.

*flexes*
.
.
.

 

[rav3n]

Sorry but these don't resonate true to stereotype.

 

[ThatGirl]

How to argue like an NTG...

Be right, ALL THE TIME!

 

[Arclight]

You don't like a person's idea.. Call them names, tell them they are wrong but never actually back up why they are wrong.. Keep repeating your point over and over and over again.
Call the other person names.. tell them they are retarded..Accuse them of being closed minded and over emotional.
Ignore any contrary evidence to your point. Claim the evidence is just "opinion".
Attack the other person again..
Repeat your point.. again.. Then again . Then again..
Continue to ignore the point.
Continue with the personal attack.
Use evidence to back up your claim, finally.. Ignore that it is a blog post of yours, from another forum.
Claim it as "fact"..
Repeat a few more times.
Call other person retarded again.
Claim victory when other person gives up.

 

[Lark]

ENTJ, lets define God as being very similar to me, at least in terms of being right about things.

 

[sciguy90]

You don't like a person's idea.. Call them names, tell them they are wrong but never actually back up why they are wrong.. Keep repeating your point over and over and over again.
Call the other person names.. tell them they are retarded..Accuse them of being closed minded and over emotional.
Ignore any contrary evidence to your point. Claim the evidence is just "opinion".
Attack the other person again..
Repeat your point.. again.. Then again . Then again..
Continue to ignore the point.
Continue with the personal attack.
Use evidence to back up your claim, finally.. Ignore that it is a blog post of yours, from another forum.
Claim it as "fact"..
Repeat a few more times.
Call other person retarded again.
Claim victory when other person gives up.

Somebody's mad....

 

[INTP]

How to argue like an INTP:

Let us define "God" as "that which exists". Therefore, God exists.

How to argue like an INTJ:

(Insert multi-page histrionics peppered with similes and co-opted aphorisms). Therefore, whatever point it was I was trying to make. I'm pretty sure I had one.

How to argue like an ENTJ:

Let us define what I just shouted as true. Therefore, what I just shouted is true. (Flex a bit, give that argumentative little dweeb from accounting a thousand-yard stare. Yeah. Let's see one of these pricks try to argue now.)

How to argue like an ENTP:

(Refute an example.) Therefore, there is at least one semantic quibble that can be construed as an exception to something you only mentioned tangentially, rendering every element of your argument false. (Flash a toothy grin. Yeah. This high school debate is all you. Mental high fives.)

no

 

[Arclight]

Somebody's mad....

See??? my point exactly..

I am not mad at all.. Just observant and honest.. and I knew it would only take a post or two before some demonstrated what I am talking about..

Thank You

 

[sciguy90]

See??? my point exactly..

I am not mad at all.. Just observant and honest.. and I knew it would only take a post or two before some demonstrated what I am talking about..

Thank You

Your post oozes with seething anger and hate.

 

[Jaguar]

How to argue like an INTP:

Let us define "God" as "that which exists". Therefore, God exists.

The subject of God is far too superficial.
A true 'intellectual' must engage in the analysis of a phrase in the English language which holds far greater meaning than God, and certainly greater depth.

That phrase is: Just my opinion.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/bonfire/26996-just-my-opinion.html

 

[Stanton Moore]

I would like to taunt you.. but I like the list.

*flexes*
.

Don't be a sad condom.

 

[ZPowers]

Your post oozes with seething anger and hate.

Well, anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to another thing.

Also: RE: Let us define God as "that which exists" isn't that far off from a very simplified version of the "Necessary Being" argument.

That said, I don't believe in God, and from what I've seen you'd find more INTPs defining God as that which does not exist.

 

[Engineer]

How to argue like an INTJ:

(Insert multi-page histrionics peppered with similes and co-opted aphorisms). Therefore, whatever point it was I was trying to make. I'm pretty sure I had one.

Removing the histrionics part, that's pretty much how I argue. Plus I project so much confidence in my conclusions that I usually intimidate the person I'm arguing with into believing me.

 

[Stanton Moore]

(Refute an example.) Therefore, there is at least one semantic quibble that can be construed as an exception to something you only mentioned tangentially, rendering every element of your argument false. (Flash a toothy grin. Yeah. This high school debate is all you. Mental high fives.)

This is the tactic of several INTJ's on this board...

 

[rav3n]

Removing the histrionics part, that's pretty much how I argue. Plus I project so much confidence in my conclusions that I usually intimidate the person I'm arguing with into believing me.

Hope you also don't do the below quoted. Most INTJs remain or will corral everyone else back to the point. Te doing its thing. Losing track of the point should be attributed to Ne users and short-term memory loss.

Therefore, whatever point it was I was trying to make. I'm pretty sure I had one.

 

[Engineer]

Hope you also don't do the below quoted. Most INTJs remain or will corral everyone else back to the point. Te doing its thing. Losing track of the point should be attributed to Ne users and short-term memory loss.

Oh I definitely do not. That's one thing that annoys me about most of my arguments: I'll be winning on one front, then my opponent will introduce a non-sequitur point and start to argue about that. So of course, I'll have to hammer in the fact that it's tangential, and does not apply to the previous topic of discussion. Why can't people admit when they've lost?

 

[Totenkindly]

How to argue like an INTP:
Let us define "God" as "that which exists". Therefore, God exists.

Define "exists."

That said, I don't believe in God, and from what I've seen you'd find more INTPs defining God as that which does not exist.

That is why I am dissatisfied with it.
It's entirely an arbitrary statement.

At core, the argument would have no meaning whatsoever.

(Refute an example.) Therefore, there is at least one semantic quibble that can be construed as an exception to something you only mentioned tangentially, rendering every element of your argument false. (Flash a toothy grin. Yeah. This high school debate is all you. Mental high fives.) This is the tactic of several INTJ's on this board...

UGH, that strategy about gives me an aneurysm.

If you want to see an INTP move right past cerebral strategies to option for the more viscerally pleasing ESTP "chop someone to death with a really big axe" strategy, that is the one to pick.

no

Wait, isn't that the beginning of the infamous ISFJ defense against cold NT rationality? "No, I can't BELIEVE you would even suggest such a thing, considering it would expose you as a depraved cretin with no social decency whatsoever."

(Although sometimes no words are actually uttered; there is just the slight widening of one eye as the other squints, and the mouth twists in what could suggest a hint of moral horror and disgusted surprise, as if one had suggested that pureed babies would make a fine creamy paste to spread on expensive sesame-seed crackers.)

 

[Red Herring]

That is why I am dissatisfied with it.
It's entirely an arbitrary statement.

At core, the argument would have no meaning whatsoever.

Ah, but that is precisely the beauty of it. It's neat in that it is a closed system. You expect it to be useful on top of that?

Also, better to do this at the beginning of a discussion than after a few hours: "oh, well when I said x (3 hours ago!), I meant <insert bizarre unorthodox definition>, I thought that was a given"

 

[ajblaise]

How the NTs argue, the real version:

INTPs: Use calm headed pure logic in your back-and-forths and pretend to take what the other person is saying into consideration, until they inevitably come to agree with you. They just won't let you know they've changed their minds on the spot.

INTJs: Use not-thought-through-enough logic based on your own rushed conclusions and biases about life and don't even pretend to take what the other person is saying into consideration.

ENTJs: Just be an ass.

ENTPs: Toss out whatever you can come up with, coherent or not, and see what sticks, until the other person walks away from you.