An argument made by an arguing party, after repeatedly presenting various claims or points that have been shot down by the other party (possibly citing sources), that has nothing to to do with the discourse, and often insults someone or some thing.
The main difference between this and a red herring or ad hominem is the preceeding claim/disproved process that is essentially ignored.
Named because this is often used by Republicans or Religious people, though it's applicable in any context.
The main difference between this and a red herring or ad hominem is the preceeding claim/disproved process that is essentially ignored.
Named because this is often used by Republicans or Religious people, though it's applicable in any context.
A: Obama's not American!
B: Yes he is, and here's a copy of the birth record.
A: Obama is Hitler!
B: Nope, Hitler's dead, Obama's not, therefore Obama is not Hitler.
A: Obama's as bad as Hitler!
B: Obama has not directly caused the death of 11-17 million people, so no. (Wikipedia link)
A: Obamacare still sucks!
B: That was a bullshit republican argument that has nothing to do with what we just talked about, and I now think less of you for making that point, and less of me for allowing this conversation to go as long as it did before walking away. Good day.
B: Yes he is, and here's a copy of the birth record.
A: Obama is Hitler!
B: Nope, Hitler's dead, Obama's not, therefore Obama is not Hitler.
A: Obama's as bad as Hitler!
B: Obama has not directly caused the death of 11-17 million people, so no. (Wikipedia link)
A: Obamacare still sucks!
B: That was a bullshit republican argument that has nothing to do with what we just talked about, and I now think less of you for making that point, and less of me for allowing this conversation to go as long as it did before walking away. Good day.
by RekkenSanStopSpewingBS April 17, 2011
The kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God originated and became highly developed in Islamic theology during the late Middle Ages. It gets its name from the word "kalam", which refers to Arabic philosophy or theology. Traditionally the argument was used to demonstrate the impossibility of an actual infinite existing in the real world, as well as an argument from temporal regress, thus showing that the universe cannot be eternal. In recent years these philosophical arguments have been confirmed by scientific discoveries, viz., the Big Bang theory. The most thorough and articulate proponent of the argument today is Dr. William Lane Craig.
Statement of the (modern) deductive Kalam Cosmological Argument:
p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. (Causal principle.)
p2. The universe (space, time, and matter) began to exist. (Evidenced by two philosophical arguments, the Big Bang, and the second law of thermodynamics.)
c3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Sub-argument:
sp1. As the cause of the universe (space, time, and matter), the cause must be outside of space, time and matter, and therefore be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, the cause must be a personal agent, otherwise a timeless cause could not give rise to a temporal effect like the universe. (Argument expanded.)
sp2. This is an accurate picture of God.
sc3. Therefore, God exists.
p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. (Causal principle.)
p2. The universe (space, time, and matter) began to exist. (Evidenced by two philosophical arguments, the Big Bang, and the second law of thermodynamics.)
c3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Sub-argument:
sp1. As the cause of the universe (space, time, and matter), the cause must be outside of space, time and matter, and therefore be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, the cause must be a personal agent, otherwise a timeless cause could not give rise to a temporal effect like the universe. (Argument expanded.)
sp2. This is an accurate picture of God.
sc3. Therefore, God exists.
by Gojiberry January 20, 2006
n. an argument in which you are arguing for the heck of it and may actually be against what you are arguing for. It originated in England when a girl named Anna became heavily involved with her friend Helen in an argument about whether it was ok to kill baby seals by smashing their skulls with hammers in Alaska because they had been eating the fish of the village.
" The nice woman from greenpeace was involved in a heated baby seal argument with me yesterday at the bookstore telling me that global warming is not a problem whatsoever and should be ignored. We lauged it off."
by mother superiour October 24, 2005
a trivial inconvenience or negligibly unfavorable circumstance.
by kagus christ December 3, 2004
A logical fallacy where someone claims that the argument or position of someone else is invalid not due to any faults in it but based off of faults, real or imagined, of the other person.
This argument does not make the claim it is used in valid, but also does not render it wholly invalid provided that valid arguments may be found in other parts of the claim.
This argument does not make the claim it is used in valid, but also does not render it wholly invalid provided that valid arguments may be found in other parts of the claim.
Examples of Argument ad Hominem:
1. Your presidential candidate has been shown to have been cheating on her wife, how the hell can you trust her to manage labor issues?
2. He's not a valid candidate, just look at how he dresses! If he can't mage his wardrobe, how's he going to manage a whole state?
1. Your presidential candidate has been shown to have been cheating on her wife, how the hell can you trust her to manage labor issues?
2. He's not a valid candidate, just look at how he dresses! If he can't mage his wardrobe, how's he going to manage a whole state?
by Rando Enby February 3, 2021
Originally a bastardization of the phrase "straw man argument," which has now come to mean any argument so ridiculous and nonsensical that it isn't even worth debating.
Bearer1 says, "A child mentality in that immaturity affords them the rights of the immaturity to respond with substandard response."
Rath replies, "WTF, that's a straw hat argument!"
Rath replies, "WTF, that's a straw hat argument!"
by Rathgryn October 20, 2008
Made ass arguments is a term used to refer to arguments during a debate or discussion or arguing that are actually simply arguments used for ridicule someone or shame someone, usually united with argumentative falacies and logical falacies. Made ass arguments are usually used on political and religious debates / arguings on internet, where this form of argumentation is usually normal.
I am not going to "debate" politics on internet because literally everyone just use made ass arguments on those "debates".
by Full Monteirism December 16, 2020