Have you ever read someone defending Bitcoin and winced internally because the person is using an easily dismissed type of argumentation? In a way it's worse than saying nothing at all, because it makes the criticism look stronger while making the whole Bitcoin community look weaker... Like, if you can't come up with a better argument than that, then it sort of implies that maybe whatever the criticism was might actually be valid.

My pet peeve example of this is what's often referred to as "whataboutism".

I have seen this many times around Bitcoin's energy use. "What about clothes dryers??" "What about Christmas lights??" Nobody cares. That's not a persuasive argument.

A persuasive argument gets to the heart of the criticism and weakens it. Whataboutism is a quick, lazy attempt to distract without providing any substantive response to the criticism.

Of course it's much easier to just scream "clothes dryers!" than it is to patiently dismantle the opponent's claims. And most people end up doing both. But I'd say the overall impact would be stronger if the whataboutism were skipped.

But whataboutism is just one example of weak/cringe argumentation.

What forms of weak pro-Bitcoin argumentation make you cringe? Got any recent examples?