Definitions by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal
Lolgurment
A portmanteau of “lolcow” (an internet target of sustained mockery) and “argument.” It describes a particularly toxic form of online debate where the goal is not to exchange ideas or even to win through attrition, but to treat the opponent as a lolcow—someone to be ridiculed, farmed for outrage, and publicly humiliated. In a lolgurment, the attacker’s primary weapon is contempt: they respond with laughing emojis, screenshots, and call‑out posts designed to make the opponent look absurd. Any substantive point is ignored or twisted into further “proof” of the opponent’s foolishness. Lolgurment transforms debate into a spectacle, where the audience is invited to laugh at the target rather than evaluate arguments.
Example: “He didn’t engage with her data; he just posted clown emojis and called her a lolcow. The thread became a lolgurment—mockery masquerading as debate.”
Lolgurment by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal May 14, 2026
Arbitrary Logic
A form of reasoning that accepts asymmetrical, context‑free rules as legitimate constraints on argumentation. Arbitrary logic holds that one can legitimately demand evidence in one format while rejecting all others, cap opponent’s responses while keeping one’s own unlimited, or dismiss counter‑evidence by fiat (“I don’t accept that source because I said so”). It is “logic” that privileges power and persistence over coherence and fairness. Arbitrary logic often appears in debates where one participant has moderator privileges or social standing and can enforce their rules without reciprocity. It is logic stripped of consistency, reduced to a tool of control.
Example: “His arbitrary logic allowed him to say ‘that study doesn’t count because it was funded by X,’ while citing a blog post funded by Y. Consistency wasn’t the point; winning was.”
Arbitrary Logical System
A pseudo‑formal framework that codifies arbitrary argumentation into a set of “rules” that are applied selectively to disadvantage one side. In an arbitrary logical system, premises may be accepted or rejected without justification, inference rules may be suspended mid‑argument, and evidence standards may shift at will. The only consistent feature is asymmetry: what is required of the opponent is never required of oneself. While such a system is logically incoherent, it can be effective in online spaces where there is no referee or where the referee is biased. It is the logical shadow of attrition warfare.
Example: “The debate forum’s moderation enforced an arbitrary logical system: newcomers had to provide citations for every claim; veterans could post unsupported opinions. The rules were consistent only in who they disadvantaged.”
Arbitrary Logical System
A pseudo‑formal framework that codifies arbitrary argumentation into a set of “rules” that are applied selectively to disadvantage one side. In an arbitrary logical system, premises may be accepted or rejected without justification, inference rules may be suspended mid‑argument, and evidence standards may shift at will. The only consistent feature is asymmetry: what is required of the opponent is never required of oneself. While such a system is logically incoherent, it can be effective in online spaces where there is no referee or where the referee is biased. It is the logical shadow of attrition warfare.
Example: “The debate forum’s moderation enforced an arbitrary logical system: newcomers had to provide citations for every claim; veterans could post unsupported opinions. The rules were consistent only in who they disadvantaged.”
Arbitrary Logic by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal May 14, 2026
Arbitrary Debate
A debate governed by arbitrary argumentation rules, where the playing field is intentionally tilted. Arbitrary debates often feature “gotcha” limitations: “you have three sentences to disprove my ten‑paragraph argument,” or “you can respond only once per day while I post hourly.” Other arbitrary constraints include banning certain types of evidence (e.g., “qualitative data doesn’t count”), demanding proof of negatives (“prove there are no ghosts”), or insisting on impossible standards (“peer‑reviewed study within 24 hours”). The goal is not fairness but to make the opponent’s participation impossible, then declare victory by default.
Example: “He set the arbitrary debate so that she had to summarise her entire thesis in one tweet, while he could reply with long threads. She declined, and he claimed she conceded.”
Arbitrary Discussion
A discussion that has been captured by arbitrary argumentation tactics, turning what could be a genuine exchange into a rigged game. In an arbitrary discussion, one side imposes unilaterally declared rules—character limits, topic restrictions, evidence filters—that apply only to the other side. The target is forced to argue with one hand tied, often while the attacker ignores their own constraints. The discussion becomes a performance of dominance rather than a search for understanding. Arbitrary discussions are common in closed online communities where moderators or influential users can set asymmetrical rules for newcomers or dissenters.
Example: “She tried to have a good‑faith conversation, but every time she made a point he changed the rules: ‘no statistics,’ ‘only primary sources,’ ‘your reply is too long.’ It was an arbitrary discussion from the start.”
Arbitrary Discussion
A discussion that has been captured by arbitrary argumentation tactics, turning what could be a genuine exchange into a rigged game. In an arbitrary discussion, one side imposes unilaterally declared rules—character limits, topic restrictions, evidence filters—that apply only to the other side. The target is forced to argue with one hand tied, often while the attacker ignores their own constraints. The discussion becomes a performance of dominance rather than a search for understanding. Arbitrary discussions are common in closed online communities where moderators or influential users can set asymmetrical rules for newcomers or dissenters.
Example: “She tried to have a good‑faith conversation, but every time she made a point he changed the rules: ‘no statistics,’ ‘only primary sources,’ ‘your reply is too long.’ It was an arbitrary discussion from the start.”
Arbitrary Debate by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal May 14, 2026
Arbitrary Argumentation
A more irregular, often extreme form of attrition argumentation, characterised by arbitrary constraints that limit the opponent’s ability to respond while granting no such limits to the attacker. Common tactics include: capping the opponent’s characters or sentences per reply, restricting the number of replies per turn, or imposing artificial time limits. Another form is citing a single study or authority as absolute while ignoring all counter‑evidence (e.g., “science proved mediumship is impossible, therefore it’s a psychiatric case and police matter”). Arbitrary argumentation is common in online political, religious, and science debates, where asymmetrical rules are used to handicap dissent rather than test ideas.
Example: “The debate rules allowed him unlimited posts, but her replies could not exceed 280 characters. That’s arbitrary argumentation: rigging the form to ensure a predetermined outcome.”
Arbitrary Argumentation by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal May 14, 2026
Attrition Logic
A distorted form of reasoning that underpins attrition argumentation, where the “logic” is that persistence, volume, and the ability to outlast the opponent are the primary measures of correctness. Attrition logic holds that if you can keep asking questions forever, the opponent’s eventual silence proves your point. It treats exhaustion as evidence, endurance as insight. It also includes meta‑rules: “a claim not proven to an impossible standard is false,” “a single unaddressed corner case invalidates the whole argument,” and “the person who stops engaging first admits defeat.” Attrition logic is not about truth; it is about designing a game the opponent cannot win.
Example: “He didn’t care about her sources; his attrition logic said that if he demanded enough clarifications, she would eventually give up, and that would mean he was right.”
Attrition Logical System
A quasi‑formal system of reasoning that enshrines attrition tactics as legitimate logical moves. In this system, “proof” is not a matter of evidence but of endurance: a proposition is considered established if the proponent can withstand all attacks without quitting, and an argument is valid if it forces the opponent into silence. The system’s rules include: infinite regress is permitted (each answer may be challenged by a further question), burden of proof is permanently assigned to one side, and any failure to respond within an arbitrary time limit counts as a concession. While no serious logician endorses it, attrition logic systems operate de facto in many online flamewars.
Example: “The subreddit’s unwritten rules followed an attrition logical system: the person who replied last after 50 exchanges was declared the winner, regardless of content.”
Attrition Logical System
A quasi‑formal system of reasoning that enshrines attrition tactics as legitimate logical moves. In this system, “proof” is not a matter of evidence but of endurance: a proposition is considered established if the proponent can withstand all attacks without quitting, and an argument is valid if it forces the opponent into silence. The system’s rules include: infinite regress is permitted (each answer may be challenged by a further question), burden of proof is permanently assigned to one side, and any failure to respond within an arbitrary time limit counts as a concession. While no serious logician endorses it, attrition logic systems operate de facto in many online flamewars.
Example: “The subreddit’s unwritten rules followed an attrition logical system: the person who replied last after 50 exchanges was declared the winner, regardless of content.”
Attrition Logic by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal May 14, 2026
Attrition Debate
A debate conducted according to the principles of attrition argumentation, where winning is defined by outlasting the opponent’s patience, mental health, or will to continue rather than by superior logic or evidence. Attrition debates often feature asymmetric effort: one side produces short, dismissive posts while demanding long, detailed responses from the other. The attrition debater uses repetition, irrelevant tangents, and endless requests for clarification to drag the exchange into dozens of replies. When the opponent finally refuses to engage further, the attritionist proclaims “I win by default.” It is the debate equivalent of a siege, not a fencing match.
Example: “The thread had 400 comments, most of them him demanding she explain basic concepts over and over. She stopped replying after three days, and he announced he had won the attrition debate.”
Attrition Discussion
A discussion that has been hijacked by attrition argumentation tactics, transforming a potentially collaborative exchange into a draining, hostile grind. Unlike a good‑faith discussion where participants seek mutual understanding, an attrition discussion is a one‑sided endurance test. One party (or a small group) sets the pace: they ask endless questions, ignore answers already given, shift topics abruptly, and reject any summary as insufficient. The other party is forced to repeat themselves, scroll back for evidence, and spend hours crafting replies that will be met with “I don’t see how that answers my question.” Eventually, the target either leaves or breaks down, at which point the attritionist claims victory.
Example: “She joined what looked like a friendly discussion about politics, but by the third day she was losing sleep fact‑checking his repetitive claims. It was an attrition discussion, not a debate.”
Attrition Discussion
A discussion that has been hijacked by attrition argumentation tactics, transforming a potentially collaborative exchange into a draining, hostile grind. Unlike a good‑faith discussion where participants seek mutual understanding, an attrition discussion is a one‑sided endurance test. One party (or a small group) sets the pace: they ask endless questions, ignore answers already given, shift topics abruptly, and reject any summary as insufficient. The other party is forced to repeat themselves, scroll back for evidence, and spend hours crafting replies that will be met with “I don’t see how that answers my question.” Eventually, the target either leaves or breaks down, at which point the attritionist claims victory.
Example: “She joined what looked like a friendly discussion about politics, but by the third day she was losing sleep fact‑checking his repetitive claims. It was an attrition discussion, not a debate.”
Attrition Debate by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal May 14, 2026
Attrition Argumentation
A form of argumentation, common on social media platforms like Reddit, Discord, X/Twitter, and YouTube comment sections, where the goal is not to persuade or reach truth but to exhaust the opponent into submission or madness. Practitioners use a battery of tactics: sealioning (persistent, bad‑faith questioning), moving the goalpost, moving the proofpost, exhaustive induction (demanding infinite details), fallacy fallacy (dismissing valid points because of a minor logical slip), objective bias (claiming one’s own view is simply “reality”), and unbiased bias (pretending to be neutral while systematically attacking one side). Attrition argumentation weaponises time and energy: the opponent must endlessly respond, and when they finally snap or withdraw, the attritionist declares victory. It turns dialogue into a war of stamina, not reason.
Example: “He asked her for a source, she provided it; he asked for a better source, she gave a meta‑analysis; then he asked for raw data from every participant. That’s attrition argumentation: win by exhausting, not by evidence.”
Attrition Argumentation by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal May 14, 2026