Answers to Unanswerable Questions Through Countless Arguments and Stupid Statements by Stupid People 

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!!!

Answers to Unanswerable Questions Through Countless Arguments and Stupid Statements by Stupid People by TRK, Author April 25, 2008

arguement 

The alternate spelling of the word 'argument' in British English, as with 'judgment' and 'judgement'.

For the sake of the arguement, let us say that he is a potato.

arguement by ptrferdinand September 10, 2006

straw man arguement 

A locical fallacy in which the arguementative point is made into a caracature of it's original point. Extremely effective because it's not based on facts, but lies and assumptions. The burden of proof then lies in the defense, not the offense. Especially effective when the defense isn't allowed to offer objection. Popularized by right wing talk radio hosts Rush and Hannity.

Step one: Build the straw man. Ignore facts and make outlandish lies/slander. Redefine the facts. "liberals want to take your guns away and turn the U.S. over to the U.N."

Step 2: Knock down the straw man. "That flies in the face of everything we Americans believe in."

Step 3: Connect step 2 to step 1. "Only a communist would think of something like that."

Step 4: "Negate" your opponant by opposing the conclusion in step 3. "I hate those liberal communists. If they think us right-wingers will sit quietly while they destroy the country the're dead wrong."

Rush and Hannity can't argue the facts, so they have to make up the "evil liberal agenda" and then appear patriotic by opposing it.

straw man arguement by spot December 6, 2004

Political arguments 

A competition to see who throw the most shit at their opponent in a given time period.

Political arguments are great!

Political arguments by Person80 February 26, 2017

Hot chocolate arguement 

An argument that is silly and can't be resolved. Usually about symantics.

The genesis is an argument over whether hot chocolate is still hot chocolate if it's cold.

This is just a hot chocolate arguement

Hot chocolate arguement by Jake November 15, 2004

arguement 

Frequent (?) mispelling of argument.

At best it's an arguement from ignorance

arguement by hwk September 5, 2008

Strawman Arguments 

Strawman Arguments (I call them Stickman Arguments, sometimes) are arguments in which someone who you are debating takes your points and twists them to get ground on you in order to form a refutation in which they are correct.

Person A: *Signs on to start a topic saying:* For anyone out there who questions God because God doesn't always answer your prayers, the truth is: God doesn't help us because we have free will.

Person B: That's an unsound argument because it has no ground to stand on and it is overused. It's like saying, "What if I'm right and you're wrong and you go to Hell?" to an atheist.

Person A: We're not talking about Hell, therefore your refutation has no grounds.

Person B: Please take your strawman arguments somewhere else

Person A: You're going to burn in Hell for not believing in God!

Person A signs off.

Person B facepalms.

Strawman Arguments by Life's Outcast Of Death April 3, 2009