Random
Source Code
Random
So much of our current social and political discourse is based on proving the other wrong i.e. winning the argument. We don't demonstrate enough empathy to understand where the "other" is coming from and the merits of their point. A black and white world is a construct of our own imagination and our desire to imprint our views on to others. It ignores the beauty that the synthesis or fusion of diverse ideas enables.
John had made a life out of proving people wrong. He took pride in being able to argue against any position and win. He was a talk show host. One night when he was grilling a guest who was making a point around having improved gun controls in place. John, barely let she finish her sentences, was adversarial and was not listening. At the end of the segment the guest said; "John, do you want to win the argument, or make a difference".
A future Nobel-prize winning, best selling book. With over 10 authors, including Matsuda, Richard, Lucy, Seymour, Alli, and TRK, this crazy group of debators takes on the task of answering such unanswerable questions as: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?""Why did that chicken cross the road in the first place?", and "What is the plural of butter?" This crazy group of intelligent beings go head to head in this back and forth book of debates. The debators combine fact, personal opinion, and senseless rambling to prove their cases. This book WILL be published by 2011. And it WILL become a best-seller by 2013. People will love this book, and this is a first hand-sneak preview of what the future holds. This will be talked about on Oprah. They will make a movie out of it. Answers to Unanswerable Questions Through Countless Arguments and Stupid Statements by Stupid People is the product of evolution/creation debates in Lab Biology, other stupid arguments in Geometry, and exreme boredom.
Oprah Winfrey: Ok, folks, now I would like to welcome the main authors of the best-selling book Answers to Unanswerable Questions Through Countless Arguments and Stupid Statements by Stupid People: Mike, Randy, and JJ!!!
Crowd: Wooooo!!!
"nice argument. unfortunately, fill in the blank"
if you're in the middle of a disagreement online, sending a message in this format will immediately ruin the recipient's argument, and most likely their life. use only as a last resort. examples below
nice argument. unfortunately, 192.168.1.45
nice argument. unfortunately, your mother is obese
nice argument. unfortunately, I have a grenade launcher
nice argument. unfortunately, you probably eat at Burger King for lunch every day
A regular argument in which the general topic at hand is unimportant but is still treated as if it actually is in some aspect, usually by the person/people who initially sparked the conversation in the first place. In most cases Cold-Fire Arguments get extremely heated for no other reason for the sake of the discourse rather than the actual topic.
"Why did we even decide to go along with that whole conversation last night? We got nowhere I ended with a shitty feeling afterward."
"It was a Cold-Fire Argument, that's why."
A large clump of text sent in one message in an online argument. It is usually a long, formulated message used to support their argument, however it is pointless, since this is the internet, and no one wants to read something that big, so everyone ignores them.
"Wow, that moron's been typing for 10 minutes now, seems he's typing an argument bible or something."
A “tall boots” argument is the use of the propaganda technique of Intentional Vagueness combined with “allusory correlation” to passively insinuate causation between a correlation without directly saying it. The employer of this annoying method of bullshittery, while never explicitly stating the idea itself, instead leads someone to believe they came to their own conclusions based on their insinuations by suggesting it to them, and not explaining further.
The term comes from the tall boots that nazi’s wore - or more specifically, pointing out that nazi’s wore tall boots TO someone wearing tall boots with the phrase “I’m not saying you’re a nazi, but…” while clearly insinuating a connection to someone wearing tall boots, and nazis. The argument is illogical, but this technique is effective because it leads people into trying to figure out what the argument *is* rather than examining the argument itself, no matter how stupid it is.
You will know when that annoying friend of yours is using this technique in two steps:
1. The start with the phrase “I’m not saying *insert subject of connection*, but…” before trailing off
2. You tell them that that’s stupid, which prompts only a shrug, rather than any extrapolation
Xavier: Oh dude, check out my new boots!
Jake: They look pretty tall.
Xavier: Hell yeah! Leather, too.
Jake: You know, nazis wore tall boots.
Xavier: Shut the hell up Jake, what kinda “tall boots” argument bullshit is that.
Everyone on twitter: Oh my god, Jake is right…what the hell is wrong with Xavier
(Now apply this example to a news outlet of your choice)
Being ready and enthusiastic to argue about anything, especially dull bullshit.
The bubbly girl wanted to make everyone as argumentative as her, so she divided them into people that thought the new sandwich taco was a sandwich and people that thought it was a taco so that they would shoot each other in arguments over whether it was a sandwich or a taco.