Random
Source Code
Random
Every conspiracy theory can be presented as a conspiracy itself.
A: I'm telling you, there are aliens in Area 51, it's no conspiracy theory.
B: No, the conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, it's what they want you to think.
A: You are just using the Conspiracy-Loop Argument.
For people that live together- one who watches the news vs one who has their own thoughts and does NOT believe ANYTHING he reads or sees
we are ALL living in an argumentative reality!
after arguing you guys fuck it out
we finished arguing so we had to do the argument rule.
Someone who does not know how to use the term strongman argument right when a straw man argument is supposed to be someone pretending to answer with facts but really not answering the question at all
Example a Pinocchio's argument is where one who is listing facts gets told by the other person that's a straw man argument even though facts were presented and a straw man argument cannot exist when there's facts presented because I true straw man argument is it's bad because it's bad with no facts given. However someone using the Pinocchio's argument is just ignoring the facts and pretending there is a straw man argument when it doesn't fit the criteria for a straw man argument. In other words the pretending and lying and misusing it just to win an argument because in their eyes it's not about whether the right or wrong it's just whether they win. Hence the Pinocchio's argument
SM (Sunny (and) Mari) Argument made by Omocat.
Explanation: One of the Accidental Murder arguments EVER made.
Deciphered:
Please note that it is 40% deciphered;
Search Sunny Argument on YT (Youtube) and go on the OMORI word starting one.
The argument video has a 30% chance of being real. The year was 1988, explaining the distortion (Omocat MADE the distortion.).
The audio itself and distortion comes from the game "OMORI" which is made by the same developer of SM Argument, Omocat.
OMORI is based-off of Omocat's experiences of Nikki, etc. (Nikki is second name.).
One of the MOST Accidental Murder arguments EVER made is SM Argument.
A squabble whereby you require your opponent to give you a blowjob at da same time as he/she is presenting his side of da dispute.
One of da main advantages of an oral argument is dat you don't even hafta listen to your opponent's whiny monologue because he/she unavoidably has his/her mouth --- shall we say --- "otherwise occupied" at da time. What you can then do is to eventually suggest dat said grumbler engage in "regular" sex wif you in order to both satisfy your "pleasure me while telling me your side of da disagreement" stipulation and free up his/her mouth to do da yacking. Naturally he/she may not wish to do so, and thus he/she may just allow you to win said dispute without further debate, since said concession may seem less offensive/upsetting/humiliating than submitting his/her pelvis to you.
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)