Argument from Asparagus
A: “You don’t really have an ultimate explanation for asparagus, do you?”
B: “I’m not sure what you mean.”
A: “Well, you don’t have an answer to the question, ‘Why is there any asparagus, rather than no asparagus in the world.’”
B: “I’ve never really asked that question—but I suppose you’re right: I can’t answer it.”
A: “That’s because your system of thought is missing the necessary ingredient for finding the answer to that question.”
B: “And the necessary ingredient is?”
A: “Assume a green garden goblin...”
B: “Whoa! I’m not sure that I need an explanation for asparagus that badly.”
A: “Well, if you’re satisfied with an incomplete horticultural worldview...”
Philosophical Relativism
A: “I’m not a relativist; I believe in the absolute truth—I’m a [insert appropriate religious/philosophical denomination].”
B: “I’m not a relativist; I believe in the absolute truth—I’m a [insert appropriate opposing religious/philosophical denomination].”
C: “I’m not a relativist; I believe in the absolute truth—I’m a [insert appropriate religious/philosophical denomination opposed to the first two].”
A: “Heretics!”
B: “Despot!”
C: “Deluded idiots!”
—Well, you know, looking from the outside in, you all seem pretty relative to me...—
A, B & C (in unison): “Relativist!”
A: I feel as though I have just made a rather convincing arguement. How does you rispond?
B: Your grammer and spelling are laughable and appalling to say the least. I now have no obligation to acknowledge or respond to your valid arguement, let alone you existence. You sir are pathetic.
Originally posted by whodeyYour grammar and spelling are laughable and appalling to say the least. I therefore have no obligation to acknowledge your valid example, let alone your existence. You sir, are pathetic.
A: I feel as though I have just made a rather convincing arguement. How does you rispond?
B: Your grammer and spelling are laughable and appalling to say the least. I now have no obligation to acknowledge or respond to your valid arguement, let alone you existence. You sir are pathetic.
Argument from gobbledygook
Professor: "The Modern Era promoted a dualistic world of scientific determinism and spiritual freedom. This began with Descartes, and Newtonian deterministic physics and Kant's noumenal and phenomenal worlds strengthened it. Marx divided our spirit in two, and postmodernism separated people into their own individual worlds. This reflects the view of an entropic world slipping into destruction. Reflecting this, the arts swung between forms of naturalism and romanticism. A new scientific paradigm challenges this view. Chaos theory shows the world is not deterministic; game theory shows restraints create freedom; information theory shows information creates structure; complex systems theory shows entropy can create order; J. T. Fraser's umwelt theory of time unifies these."
http://epublish.utdallas.edu/dissertations/AAI3138685/
Laymen: Huh??!!
Originally posted by stockenA: Valid example given to fit the constucts of a given thread
Your grammar and spelling are laughable and appalling to say the least. I therefore have no obligation to acknowledge your valid example, let alone your existence. You sir, are pathetic.
B: Smartaaaaaasssssssss response
Argument from Non-condescension
A: “Gurjup wullyrup zayno!”
B: “What!!??!!”
A: “I tell you again: ‘Gurjup wullyrup zayno!’”
B: “I have no idea what you’re on about.”
A: “Well, if I condescended to translate, you would just try to start an argument using merely mundane logic. I refuse to get drawn into such a pointless debate. So, I say to you: ‘Gullyrup wupurj yonaz!’”