Who's the worst person to get in an arguement with?

[Nikkoru]

I voted for Gordon Ramsay

Because he isn't fictional and I wouldn't have to wait for a writer to come up with a response.

Ramsay is fictional as well, at least as far as his reality show dramatis personæ is concerned. He's in the same vein as Simon Cowell, except he can have softer moments of seemingly sincere compassion.

I doubt he, Hugh Laurie, Jim Parsons, or Robert Downy Jr are especially daunting to debate in real life.

[th3dudee]

My dad
Fan boys/girls
A Catholic/Christian/a Muslim ( all believers in "GOD" )

[kromc5]

I voted for Gordon Ramsay, I would be wishing for the suicide booth from Futurama in just a few minutes with him.

[Havoc10K]

Me, for obvious reasons

[Masterworla]

Worst person is yourself, The enemy is you. overcome that inner weakness then ur unbeatable.

[Havoc10K]

I don't argue with myself, me and myself have a good deal, I order myself around, and myself listens to me

[Masterworla]

I don't argue with myself, me and myself have a good deal, I order myself around, and myself listens to me

then ur not one of those ignorant people around today. good for you, u get a cookie.

[Havoc10K]

Beer and chocolate please, cookies are for staff members

[Mizou-kun]

The worst person to get in argument with huh ... people that think drama and romance animes are homosexual.

[megido-rev.M]

Anyone who would argue for the sake of arguing, really.

[Ixarku]

People who are so convinced that they are right that they absolutely refuse to accept stone cold facts that clearly refute their position.  An example might be someone who, in this day and age, still believes that the Earth is flat despite the ridiculous amount of evidence that proves otherwise.

[arsa666]

My brother, honestly beacause we are both convinced that we are right...

AND OFC people who says dubs are better/the same as subs in anime, I HATE IT

[Scudworth]

... AND OFC people who says dubs are better/the same as subs in anime, I HATE IT

I know right, especially since it's so obvious that subs are better.

[megido-rev.M]

People who are so convinced that they are right that they absolutely refuse to accept stone cold facts that clearly refute their position.  An example might be someone who, in this day and age, still believes that the Earth is flat despite the ridiculous amount of evidence that proves otherwise.

Ooh, they are annoying as crap. I either avoid them altogether or otherwise need to express myself and get the point through them.

[Ixarku]

People who are so convinced that they are right that they absolutely refuse to accept stone cold facts that clearly refute their position.  An example might be someone who, in this day and age, still believes that the Earth is flat despite the ridiculous amount of evidence that proves otherwise.

Ooh, they are annoying as crap. I either avoid them altogether or otherwise need to express myself and get the point through them.

I rarely encounter people like this, but it is one of the few things that drives me to near-homicidal rage.  Being unable to reason with someone who is being stubborn and deliberately unreasonable is one of the single most frustrating things in life.

[Nikkoru]

I find arguing with unreasonable people ups your game, so to speak. Like teaching a subject you think you know well to a neophyte or child. Not only do you reinforce your understanding and perhaps gain new knowledge along the way, but you become more competent at the art of expression and presentation. It's an exercise in mental flexibility.

It's not the arguments with such people that are the real annoyance, it's when those people consider any argument against their perspective a personal affront and act hostile towards you for an unspecified period of time.

... and finding out they're in the right is possibly the most horrific event imaginable.

[megido-rev.M]

I find arguing with unreasonable people ups your game, so to speak. Like teaching a subject you think you know well to a neophyte or child. Not only do you reinforce your understanding and perhaps gain new knowledge along the way, but you become more competent at the art of expression and presentation. It's an exercise in mental flexibility.

It's not the arguments with such people that are the real annoyance, it's when those people consider any argument against their perspective a personal affront and act hostile towards you for an unspecified period of time.

... and finding out they're in the right is possibly the most horrific event imaginable.

Personally I would rather avoid any lecturing when possible. And yes, the possibility that one is wrong is the essence of arguing.

[Nikkoru]

I find arguing with unreasonable people ups your game, so to speak. Like teaching a subject you think you know well to a neophyte or child. Not only do you reinforce your understanding and perhaps gain new knowledge along the way, but you become more competent at the art of expression and presentation. It's an exercise in mental flexibility.

It's not the arguments with such people that are the real annoyance, it's when those people consider any argument against their perspective a personal affront and act hostile towards you for an unspecified period of time.

... and finding out they're in the right is possibly the most horrific event imaginable.

Personally I would rather avoid any lecturing when possible. And yes, the possibility that one is wrong is the essence of arguing.

You're confusing a rational debate with a contentious verbal or written altercation in which the words are irrelevant. Outside of arguments from emotion, there are arguments of opinion -- these are most of them --in which case one cannot be wrong however vehemently it's implied.

Though, the situation I was thinking of is the odd occasion when irrational reasoning appears validated. Such as a horoscopes or psychic reading in which the prophetic projection is eerily reproduced in reality. Or a conspiracy theorist, bigots, or jingoists who because of some entirely coincidental events gain some measure of credence for their views even if they're all based on thoughtless supposition and baseless fear.  It's happened to me a few times.

[NeonFlame]

(click to show/hide)

I find arguing with unreasonable people ups your game, so to speak. Like teaching a subject you think you know well to a neophyte or child. Not only do you reinforce your understanding and perhaps gain new knowledge along the way, but you become more competent at the art of expression and presentation. It's an exercise in mental flexibility.

It's not the arguments with such people that are the real annoyance, it's when those people consider any argument against their perspective a personal affront and act hostile towards you for an unspecified period of time.

... and finding out they're in the right is possibly the most horrific event imaginable.

Personally I would rather avoid any lecturing when possible. And yes, the possibility that one is wrong is the essence of arguing.

You're confusing a rational debate with a contentious verbal or written altercation in which the words are irrelevant. Outside of arguments from emotion, there are arguments of opinion -- these are most of them --in which case one cannot be wrong however vehemently it's implied.

Though, the situation I was thinking of is the odd occasion when irrational reasoning appears validated. Such as a horoscopes or psychic reading in which the prophetic projection is eerily reproduced in reality. Or a conspiracy theorist, bigots, or jingoists who because of some entirely coincidental events gain some measure of credence for their views even if they're all based on thoughtless supposition and baseless fear.  It's happened to me a few times.

I hate it when that happens.  Because then there's no way you can "prove" that what they're saying is wrong, they have "evidence" to the contrary.. even if you know why it appeared that whatever they're saying is true works.

Proof needs to be reproducible but people just don't seem to understand that..

[Nikkoru]

I hate it when that happens.  Because then there's no way you can "prove" that what they're saying is wrong, they have "evidence" to the contrary.. even if you know why it appeared that whatever they're saying is true works.

Proof needs to be reproducible but people just don't seem to understand that..

They're always so damn smug about it too.

I remember participating in political chatroom discussions during the second Iraq war and its preamble. Some of the more unreasoning anti-war proponents and the hawkish warmongers were treating the WMDs as if they were an article of faith to be accepted or rejected blindly. Every false report of WMDs which came out and every time those reports proved false brought with them a renewed wave and eventual backlash of sickening self-satisfaction and hostility. Each side nodding sagely to one another and pondering what fools these mortals be on the other.

Either way, it was infuriating. The issue was important objectively, and both sides had reasonable grounds for doubt,  but in the end it was just an excuse to be a complete douche to people who didn't share your worldview. These arguments were just window dressing for a deeper personal malignancy coupled with masturbatory tendencies.