Researchers sometimes argue sideways: "Sponsored search is an important problem. Last year it generated ZZ billions of revenue. I am studying the offline complexity of some vague problem in this area and will show NP Hardness...." I know that is a silly example, but we should ban any paper that quotes the revenue of a business in the Intro. More seriously, I dislike it when theory papers argue as follows: Sentence A, Sentence B. Sentence A is something impressive about a business in $'s, or users or running time or whatever. And Sentence B is the problem they study vaguely in that orbit and their result.