Australian Anus Augmentator

This is the act of reaching up and pinching the balloon knot of your partner and then applying pressure with your tongue and humming the Australian National Anthem in the key of D major while giving a short but stout tug on the left nipple with a pair of vise grips and then using the other hand you fire up the dremel with a preloaded cutting wheel and you carve your initials in the partner's asscheek just as you are about to blow your load on the back of their neck and forehead

Robbie was quite sore after Rick gave him a Australian Anus Augmentator.

by BentStiffy December 16, 2008

Argumentation

The act of biting into a Slim Jim.

Thelma knew that Shithead had started an argumentation as soon as she had taking a bite of that Slim Jim.

by RustyFerretStudios March 5, 2013

argumentation

The shit that goes down when nobody can agree on the rules of a card game.

Spence, shutup with your arguementation!

by Fletch July 16, 2003

automentation

Most famously used in the tech industry.
A combination of the words automation and augmentation.

What some companies call AI, is really just RPA (Robotic Process Automation) that uses a bunch of automentation.

by jokirrx February 7, 2022

Stonelicker Argumentation

When the argument/statement is so moronic, you are forced to conclude only a person with an iq level of an inbred arab caveman could come up with such idiocy.

Guy A: " Jesus was actually a muslim that followed Islam"
Guy B: "That's peak stonelicker argumentation right there"

by Abdool8 October 23, 2024

Law of Impossible Argumentation

A meta-observational principle stating that rational, logical, critical thinking-based, reasonable debate is structurally impossible under specific conditions: on the internet (particularly social media platforms), when power struggles are involved, when paradigm disputes are at play, or when the topic is inherently non-neutral. The law identifies that these conditions remove the prerequisites for genuine argumentation: shared assumptions, good faith, willingness to be persuaded, and freedom from external pressures. On social media, algorithms reward outrage, not understanding—your reasonable paragraph is competing with dopamine hits. Power struggles mean that arguments are weapons, not inquiries—winning matters more than truth. Paradigm disputes mean parties don't share basic frameworks—they're speaking different languages disguised as the same one. Non-neutral topics (identity, trauma, survival, sacred beliefs) cannot be debated as if they were abstract propositions—the stakes are too high, the wounds too real. The law doesn't say argumentation is always impossible everywhere—it says that under these specific conditions, the game is rigged from the start. Recognizing this can save enormous time, emotional energy, and existential despair.

"I spent six hours in a Facebook comments section trying to explain systemic racism to someone who'd already decided I was the enemy. Then I remembered the Law of Impossible Argumentation: platform rewards conflict, power dynamics invisible but real, paradigm mismatch (they think individuals, I think systems), topic not neutral (their identity invested in denial). Six hours I'll never get back. The law isn't cynicism—it's a survival guide for the internet age."

by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026

Law of Impossible Argumentation

A meta-observational principle stating that neutral, good-faith debate is impossible under certain conditions: on the internet (especially social media), when power struggles are involved, when paradigm disputes are at play, or when the topic is inherently non-neutral. The law identifies structural barriers to genuine exchange: algorithms reward outrage, not understanding; power dynamics make equal footing impossible; paradigm disputes mean parties don't share basic assumptions; non-neutral topics (like identity, trauma, survival) cannot be debated as if they were abstract propositions. The law doesn't say argumentation is always impossible—it says that under these conditions, the preconditions for good-faith debate are absent. Recognizing this can save enormous time and emotional energy.

"I spent three hours trying to have a reasonable debate about politics on Twitter. Then I remembered the Law of Impossible Argumentation: algorithm rewards conflict, power dynamics are invisible but real, we don't share paradigms, and politics isn't neutral. Three hours of my life I'll never get back. The law isn't cynicism—it's a warning label for the internet."

by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026