A Discussion Stopper – Debate Stopper – Thought-terminating cliché – Invalid argument

De discussie werd beëindigd met de dooddoener dat de waarheid wel in het midden zal liggen.

Een dooddoener (of machtspreuk) is een nietszeggend argument dat een gesprek van het onderwerp afbrengt, waardoor een verdere gedachtewisseling wordt afgesneden, het dood doet slaan.

A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, commonly used to quell cognitive dissonance.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Een dooddoener

A thought-terminating cliche is a phrase often repeated within society that quells social dissent and questioning.


“All’s well that ends well.”
“No news is good news.”
“If at first you don’t suceed, try, try, again.”
“Nice guys finish last.”

De discussie werd beëindigd met de dooddoener dat de waarheid wel in het midden zal liggen.

De discussie werd beëindigd met de dooddoener dat de waarheid wel in het midden zal liggen.

A discussion stopper, also known as a debate stopper or a thought-terminating cliché, refers to a phrase or statement used to halt a conversation or debate without addressing the underlying issues. These phrases can be powerful tools for shutting down discussions, as they create an illusion of resolution without actually resolving the disagreement.

An invalid argument, on the other hand, refers to a line of reasoning that is flawed or illogical. Invalid arguments may be intentionally deceptive or may simply be the result of faulty reasoning. Common types of invalid arguments include ad hominem attacks, circular reasoning, and appeals to emotion.

A thought-terminating cliché can also be an example of an invalid argument if it is used to deflect attention away from a legitimate point of discussion or to avoid addressing an uncomfortable truth. For example, saying “that’s just the way things are” can be a thought-terminating cliché that is used to shut down a conversation about systemic injustice.

Overall, a discussion stopper or thought-terminating cliché is not a valid or constructive way to engage in a conversation or debate, as it does not address the underlying issues or allow for meaningful dialogue.

A discussion stopper, also known as a debate stopper or thought-terminating cliché, refers to a statement or phrase that is used to end a conversation or argument without addressing the actual points being made. It is a type of invalid argument that is often used to shut down discussion by dismissing the opposing point of view or by appealing to emotions instead of facts.

Some common examples of discussion stoppers include:

  • “That’s just the way it is.”
  • “Agree to disagree.”
  • “It’s always been this way.”
  • “You just don’t understand.”
  • “It’s not up for debate.”

These types of phrases can be frustrating for those engaging in a discussion or debate because they do not offer any real counterarguments or insights into the topic at hand. Instead, they simply shut down the conversation, often leaving both parties feeling unsatisfied.

It’s important to recognize when a discussion stopper is being used and to try to steer the conversation back to the actual topic at hand. This can be done by asking clarifying questions or by bringing the conversation back to specific points that were made earlier. By doing so, it’s possible to continue the discussion in a productive manner rather than allowing it to be shut down by a thought-terminating cliché.

A discussion stopper or debate stopper, also known as a thought-terminating cliché, is a term or phrase that is used to end a discussion or debate rather than to contribute to it. It is typically a statement that is meant to dismiss an argument without actually addressing the merits of the argument. These statements are often repeated in response to any opposing views and may become a kind of reflex or mantra for those who use them.

Examples of discussion stoppers include phrases like “It is what it is,” “That’s just your opinion,” or “It’s always been done this way.” These phrases are often used to shut down discussions rather than to engage with them. They imply that there is no point in continuing the discussion because the other person’s point of view is not worth considering.

In short, a discussion stopper is an invalid argument because it does not contribute anything to the discussion and instead seeks to end it without addressing the substance of the argument. It is important to avoid using these types of statements and to instead engage in constructive dialogue to reach a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

A thought-terminating cliché, also known as a discussion stopper or debate stopper, refers to a phrase or statement that is used to dismiss or halt further discussion or critical thinking on a particular topic. Here are the key points associated with thought-terminating clichés:

  1. Halt critical thinking: Thought-terminating clichés are designed to shut down further analysis, questioning, or exploration of an idea or topic. They are often used to avoid engaging in a meaningful discussion or to discourage further examination of a complex issue.

  2. Lack of substance: These clichés typically lack depth, originality, or substantive content. They rely on pre-packaged, simplistic phrases that are meant to sound authoritative or conclusive, but they often oversimplify or distort the topic at hand.

  3. Emotional appeal: Thought-terminating clichés often rely on emotional appeals rather than logical or rational arguments. They may evoke strong emotions or use persuasive language to manipulate the listener’s feelings and prevent them from critically evaluating the statement being made.

  4. Stifle dissent: These clichés are frequently used to dismiss opposing viewpoints or dissenting opinions without engaging with their substance. They can be employed as a tactic to avoid engaging in a thoughtful debate or to maintain a particular narrative without considering alternative perspectives.

  5. Reinforce groupthink: Thought-terminating clichés can contribute to the reinforcement of groupthink, a phenomenon where individuals conform to a particular ideology or consensus without critically evaluating it. By using these clichés, group members may avoid challenging or questioning the prevailing beliefs or assumptions within the group.

  6. Limit intellectual exploration: The use of thought-terminating clichés can hinder intellectual exploration and growth by discouraging deeper analysis and critical thinking. They create an environment where complex issues are reduced to oversimplified slogans or catchphrases, preventing a more nuanced understanding of the subject matter.

It’s important to recognize thought-terminating clichés and strive for open and meaningful discussions that encourage critical thinking, inquiry, and the exploration of diverse perspectives.

The saying “judges are only human too” or “rechters zijn ook maar mensen” in Dutch is indeed an example of a thought-terminating cliché. While it is true that judges are human beings with their own limitations, using this phrase in the context of a justice system can be problematic and potentially misleading. Here’s why:

  1. Implicit acceptance of flaws: By stating that judges are “only human,” the phrase implies that human error, biases, and limitations are expected and accepted within the justice system. While it’s true that no human is infallible, the phrase can be used as a defense to overlook or downplay serious shortcomings or systemic issues within the judicial process.

  2. Evasion of accountability: This cliché can be used as a means to avoid addressing specific concerns or criticisms about the fairness, transparency, or effectiveness of the justice system. It may serve as a way to dismiss legitimate questions or challenges by appealing to the inherent fallibility of individuals, rather than addressing structural or procedural problems.

  3. Undermining the pursuit of justice: In the context of a justice system, the goal is to strive for impartiality, fairness, and the pursuit of justice. While acknowledging the humanity of judges is important, it should not be used as an excuse to tolerate or overlook instances of bias, corruption, or incompetence. The phrase can inadvertently undermine efforts to improve the system and uphold its core principles.

It’s crucial to recognize that while judges, like anyone else, are prone to human error, the justice system should continually strive for improvement, accountability, and the safeguarding of individual rights. Thoughtful analysis and constructive criticism are essential for promoting a fair and just society.

Bananasplit. Met de tram.

30 mei 2010