Not an argument



… Man: Didn't Mr Vibrating: Yes I did. Man: Look this isn't an argument. Mr Vibrating: Yes it is. Man: No it isn't, it's just a contradiction. Mr Vibrating: No it isn't. Man: Yes it is. Mr Vibrating: It is not. Man: It is. You just contradicted me. Mr Vibrating: No I didn't. Man: Ooh, you did! Mr Vibrating: No, no, no, no. Man: You did, just then. Mr Vibrating: No, nonsense! Man: Oh, look this is futile. Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.<BR> Man: I came here for a good argument.<BR> Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.<BR> Man: Well, an argument's not the same as a contradiction.<BR> Mr Vibrating: It can be.<BR> Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite position.<BR> Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.<BR> Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.<BR> Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you I must take up a contrary position.<BR> Man: But it isn't just saying 'No it isn't'.<BR> Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.<BR> Man: Not it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process… contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person say.<BR> Mr Vibrating: No it isn't. …

"Not an argument" is not an argument! Now, go away! Oh, alright…

The phrase "not an argument" fallaciously dismisses arguments that are phrased as bald assertions. For example, the following exchange is common:

Takes one to know one
The "not an argument" response is usually incorrect, because the claim that purportedly is "not an argument" is itself a shorthand or implicit argument.

In the above example, the phrase "Trump is racist" is likely short for the following syllogism:

As should be clear, this is an argument.

If this is what the speaker is implying, then the assertion that this claim is "not an argument" is logically incorrect. And if so, the response that "this is not an argument" does not actually refute any of the syllogisms' points.

Of course, this same logic can be applied to the statement "not an argument" as it is an enthymeme for the following chain of reason:

Proper response
Instead, a proper response to the above argument would be to ask What is your argument? Their response should enlighten you of the syllogism that their statement is shorthand for.

Afterwards, using the above example, you can rebut one of the premises involved:
 * [X] is not a racist act (to disprove P1), or:
 * Trump did not do [X] (to disprove P2), or even:
 * Racist people are not necessarily bad (to disprove P3)

Each of these is a valid counterargument, because it attacks a premise of the original assertion. In contrast, because "not an argument" does not attack any of the premises of the original assertion, the argument of "not an argument" is itself not an argument.

Non-arguments all the way down
In the same vein, pointing out that "not an argument" is not an argument is itself not an argument.

And so on.

Other problems
Expecting all discourse to be an argument:
 * Presumes that all discussion is combative (rather than, e.g., a mutual discussion of shared/unshared beliefs)
 * Ignores "factual claims" that provide relevant information (which may support an argument without explicitly making one)
 * Is really fucking petty

Any discussion taking pretense or structure of formal debate should use appropriately constructed arguments with clear conclusions and specifically cited evidence and logical deductions. In such cases, these concerns are directly addressed by the assumptions of the format.

Argumentum ad Molyneux
Stefan Molyneux, the creator of the phrase, wrote a book on logic that confuses logical validity with logical soundness (and contains numerous fallacies throughout). Perhaps as a result, Molyneux mostly uses "not an argument" as a bludgeon against opposing viewpoints. As such, the above concerns might be above the level of discourse that "not an argument" usually operates in: that of insults and ad hominem attacks.

That being said
Yes, there may be a case for a statement being "not actually a counterargument to the argument in question" or "not actually a position that can be falsified, and thus not even wrong". It's just that currently, a lot of current usage of "not an argument" is mixing levels of argumentation.