The word evidence, though low in frequency has a high ratio of significant collocations, and in addition, each of the collocations has relatively high significance, consistently being closer to 13 than 10. Many of the significant collocations came from the thread that discussed Saudi Arabia asking its citizens to leave Lebanon.
On Reddit, users tend towards rational debate bringing in a critical view of the debate process itself. In spite of the liberal use of expletives such as jerk and fuck, the words tend to reflect the casual nature of online conversation, rather than truly hateful speech. It is also common for “polite” language to be used in a sarcastic, passive-aggressive manner as in the response below:
“You just scream without putting a valid argument and the upvotes mean so many are into your circle jerk”
“I don't get the The US is #3 behind KSA in oil production Statement intention. Do you mean that the USA oil industry is self reliable? I'm sorry if that wasn't your intention, but if that's so then this is the lowest I've seen this website going. So much for the intelectual "tendency" of this site. Again if I misunderstood really deeply sorry.”
Often, the analysis of the evidence, and the arguments themselves are dissected in great detail. Users routinely highlight and name instances of faulty reasoning, whataboutery, gaslighting, cherry picking, gainsaying, refuting, strawmanning - a veritable compendium of fallacies. An example is provided below:
Face the facts smugness is not an argument It's always interesting to see someone trying to bolster an argument by cherry picking an unrelated past event. (doc 19)
That's not what I meant at all. I was simply trying to make a counterpoint to what you said in your previous comment. My argument being that it's not wrong for people to say "Lebanon has banned Wonder Woman from theaters."
Then your argument is wrong, because all you're doing is gainsaying the OP headline and ignoring the facts I stated. False generalization is a fallacy. You haven't refuted that. (Doc 6)
A third example:
“...no foreign observer who looked it would have guessed this was used as an argument against conspiracy theory because it's so out of context. *Do you like A or B? Reply:Yes* that's the level of out of context this segment is to the rest of the sentence…. So already calling it a conspiracy theory by the "because every logical explanation to why it happened is wrong" argument - while a completely valid argument per se - is perhaps a little too rushed don't you think?And FYI, mostly Britain and USA companies control the production there. So not only every single element of your statement is a waste in terms of debate but the whole statement relies on a wrong premise.”
Almost as routinely, claims that an opponent in a debate is guilty of these faults is thrown about in a pretentious manner, making it look like the demonstration of “critical thinking” is merely to show off one’s supposed intellectual prowess. This is demonstrated in the following exchange:
“If your argument is "THEY HAD IT COMING!" then you're going to have to make up your own argument for that, because no one has anything like that "coming."”
“Aren't a lot of your assertions circular? That is, you said they don't "assimilate" (whatever that means, seems like you're conflating retaining their identity as Jews, which they do and did, with ignoring cultural norms and values, which they don't), and that they don't join the mainstream social hierarchy.”
“I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy. Maybe Jews are scapegoated so often throughout history because, due to a combination of circumstance and identity, they've always been an extremely convenient scapegoat.”
“No, it's on you for proving that they were rightfully prosecuted.”
“The burden of having an educated opinion on a subject before talking about it in public is on you though.” (doc 6)