Tangent:
When I was reading this essay I couldn't help myself from imagining a counter essay (in satire) that argues a reverse valuing of the hierarchy of argument quality indicated by Graham. Additionally the quality of the argument to argue each tier's quality would be made using it's inverse tier's quality.
I.e. For DH0, name calling, a thorough argument would be made that it should in fact be the highest tier of argument DH6. It would be elaborate, with supporting examples and scenarios that would refute the central point of DH0 arguments being ineffective.
Then by the end, DH6's counter argument would be of quality DH0.
The argument would simply be "This is just dumb, Paul Graham is a fag." [disclaimer: inline with the example given in the DH0 tier. Not actually my opinion :)]
On topic:
Arguments that include DH0's tend to invoke a jerk-neck reaction from me, causing me to immediately discredit an entire (possibly well formed) argument. So much so, that even when only affiliated with such behavior good arguments lose all credibility. For example, in the 2008 election, when emails were constantly flying back and forth through the mailing list, I'd see forwarding of articles written in legitimate and well formed manner making valid statements. However, the forwarder would have prefix some DH0 level quip above the quote or article link which immediately made me write off the entire content. I.e "Barack Obama-bin-laden setting up death panels! <insert article link here>". Even if the article was bringing up valid concerns, and itself was well written--it was already sabotaged by being associated with infantile-ness.
I.e. For DH0, name calling, a thorough argument would be made that it should in fact be the highest tier of argument DH6. It would be elaborate, with supporting examples and scenarios that would refute the central point of DH0 arguments being ineffective.
Then by the end, DH6's counter argument would be of quality DH0. The argument would simply be "This is just dumb, Paul Graham is a fag." [disclaimer: inline with the example given in the DH0 tier. Not actually my opinion :)]
On topic: Arguments that include DH0's tend to invoke a jerk-neck reaction from me, causing me to immediately discredit an entire (possibly well formed) argument. So much so, that even when only affiliated with such behavior good arguments lose all credibility. For example, in the 2008 election, when emails were constantly flying back and forth through the mailing list, I'd see forwarding of articles written in legitimate and well formed manner making valid statements. However, the forwarder would have prefix some DH0 level quip above the quote or article link which immediately made me write off the entire content. I.e "Barack Obama-bin-laden setting up death panels! <insert article link here>". Even if the article was bringing up valid concerns, and itself was well written--it was already sabotaged by being associated with infantile-ness.