I used the statement once thus far. I did so because, as a methodology for debate, the poster was conveniently ignoring certain realities in order to legitimize an opinion that had serious flaws. I don’t consider that a “personal attack” but rather a criticism of his debating methodology. If you ban people from calling out someone in a situation like that, you are IMHO damaging the debate process.
The Shorter OED, page 705, defines disingenuous as:
Moderators, just for the record, is Tom’s use of the word (with mod hat off) permissible?
Bite me. Posting on and off (off was when I was suspended, usually voluntarily) for 18 years with more warnings than I can count. 
I think that it’s valid to call an argument disingenous. If someone is put into a corner in a debate and they say something that seems absurd, then it’s reasonable to say, “Really? You actually believe that rounding up illegal immigrant children and selling them to slavers is morally fine/killing mosquitoes is murder/some other ludicrous statement that I’ve painted myself into is true?” I don’t think that it’s slander to question whether someone actually believes what they are saying or that their viewpoint seems inconsistent with what they purport themselves to be.
I personally don’t find any usefulness in the term in GD. In nearly every instance of its use I could think of better more accurate ways to describe the actions, or explain how the observation is or could be incorrect.
It does have a history of being a wobbler in GD and Elections with respect to the ‘liar’ rule and as such will continue to be context dependent.
When this happens, I’ll sometimes ask something like, “Before I respond, I need to ask: are you fucking with me?” I’m not sure if that’s okay, but sometimes I think the question needs asking.
In the first of the two cites provided, tomndebb concludes his post by saying
So it appears to be a circuitous accusation of the appearance of bad faith and JAQing off, at least in that case.
Regards,
Shodan
With posts like that, I don’t really wonder why.
Thanks for the back and forth, everyone. Sorry I didn’t get involved yesterday but I was on the beach. I think I’ll continue to avoid using it in GD – it seems too close to the lying line and I don’t want to give the mods more work than they already have. I have said things in GD like, “until you go back and answer the questions from post xx, I will not engage with you”, which at least points out my annoyance with a poster, and is a way of implying that they are not really arguing in good faith.
I may not come back to post in this thread (must keep post count down!), but I will read further responses.
It absolutely is an accusation of failing to discuss in good faith.
That is not the same thing as an accusation of lying. Note the cited post in which it was used. The accusation of being disingenuous was leveled at a poster whose argument was based on attacking a sidebar issue with the intent to silence the primary issue. No lie was posted in the section from the quoted poster, but the argument put forth was a distraction, not a response to the issue on the table.
That is certainly an acceptable tactic provided you don’t insult the other poster while doing it. As you phrased it I wouldn’t even give it a second thought.
Fair enough. Disingenuous is OK, accusations of JAQ-ing off and bad faith argumentation are OK. In GD and Elections.
So noted.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t be smarmy. Everything is context-dependent. Remember that.
I propose that insults of five or more syllables be allowed. Along with disingenuous, we could call each other abominable, disreputable, reactionary, sanctimonious, Machiavellian, circumlocutionary or, my personal favourite, pathological.
‘Smarmy’ is also OK, depending on context. So noted.
Regards,
Shodan
You can’t call a lie a lie? That’s crazy. Real talk: if Donald Trump joined the message board and rattled off 3000 misstatements but insists he didn’t lie, could we call him a liar or no?
I recommend you read the rules of the forums you participate in. From the sticky at the top of GD:
I endorse the adoption of this interpretation of the rules. It has long been my dream to call out a certain poster as a floccinaucinihilipilifactor* in GD.
*Don’t try to protest your innocence. You know who you are, and what you did. :mad:
No, but there’s a pretty good chance he’d be banned within a week, so we’ve got that going for us.