The Energy Argument Against Abortion

The Energy Argument Against Abortion is a novel, inarguable, and irrefutable argument against abortion that can be found on the END ABORTION community on X formerly known as twitter. The Energy Argument Against Abortion is as follows: Albert Einstein's mass-energy equivalence principle dictates that mass is fundamentally a form of energy. Thus, the law of conservation of energy dictates that the energy in the form of matter with mass taken in by a living system that is converted into free energy cannot be greater than the free energy utilized by the living system to carry out that CONVERSION of matter into free energy that can be utilized by the living system which mathematically means that NO NET ENERGY is added to a living system despite intake of matter with mass. Thus, as dictated by the second law of thermodynamics, the total energy of the human zygote/human fetus as a living system CANNOT increase after the moment of conception and must CONTINUALLY DECREASE since the total free energy of the human being living system progressively DECREASES as the total entropy of the human being living system progressively INCREASES since NO NET ENERGY is added to the human being living system despite intake of matter with mass into the human being living system. Thus, the human zygote/human fetus has the HIGHEST TOTAL ENERGY as a living system out of all forms of the human being including born human beings making the murderous act of abortion WRONG and IMMORAL under any circumstance!

Example: "Hey bro, I just used The Energy Argument Against Abortion in order to COMPLETELY DEBUNK every single pro-abortion apologist and it was completely FANTASTIC!"

by The Global Revolutionary April 15, 2024

Best Atheist Argument

Mine.

Hym "I'm pretty sure the best atheist argument against the existence of God was mine. Which was (If you all don't remember which you probably don't even have to because you clearly have access to this in a way I do not) If God exists, it created an inferior race of being to have it's way with for eternity. If it's a sentient lifeform that did this deliberately, it is either culpable or directly responsible for everything that happens here. This is both the worst possible iteration of reality conceivable and something I wouldn't have ever chosen. Which means it's non-consensual. It (God) is, therefore, either evil or incompetent. I mean, seriously, I've been trying to poop for like 10 minutes now. I sat down because I- Ope, there it goes. I got it out while I was editing. But even now, my legs are numb because I've been on the toilet for so long. Hold on.................................... (Had to wipe) Alright... So, I'm literally a captive. Beyond that I'm trapped here with you. Which is not going great. And, um, yeah... "

by Hym Iam June 20, 2024

Self-Serving Argument

An argument crafted from the ground up not to find truth or even to genuinely persuade a neutral party, but to defend your position, justify your actions, or win favor with a specific audience that already agrees with you. Its structure, evidence, and emotional appeals are all tailored for a verdict of "not guilty" from the jury of your own ego or your in-group.

Example: "His email to the boss was a self-serving argument masterpiece. It framed his missed deadline as 'pivoting to ensure quality,' presented his team's work as his own solo 'leadership initiative,' and cast subtle blame on a colleague for 'supply chain delays.' Its purpose wasn't to inform, but to secure a bonus and shield his reputation."

by AbzuInExile January 31, 2026

Fallacy Fallacy (Argumentum ad Logicam)

The formal meta-fallacy of concluding that a proposition is false simply because the argument presented for it contains a logical fallacy. This is a critical thinking fail state: you correctly spot flawed reasoning (e.g., an appeal to emotion, a post hoc correlation) but then incorrectly assume the conclusion is therefore untrue. A bad argument for a claim doesn't automatically make the claim wrong; it just means you're still waiting for a good argument.

Fallacy Fallacy (Argumentum ad Logicam) Example: "He argues we should help the poor because it makes us feel good. That's just an appeal to emotion, a fallacy. Therefore, we should not help the poor." This commits the Fallacy Fallacy. The poor might still desperately need help; the speaker has just shot down one weak justification, not disproven the need for the action itself.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

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

Poisoning the Argument

A specific form of Argumentum Ad Argumentum where adverse information about an argument is presented preemptively, before the argument itself is even made, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing it in advance. The audience is primed to reject whatever follows based on its perceived category or affiliation. Classic example: "This is just relativism" or "This is postmodernism" said before someone presents a view that might be labeled as such. The poison works before the argument has a chance to speak. The audience is now inoculated: anything that sounds remotely like relativism is already dismissed, regardless of its actual content or merit. Poisoning the Argument is rhetorical preemptive strike—killing the argument before it's born, not by addressing its claims but by tainting its category.

Poisoning the Argument "Before I could even explain my perspective on knowledge, they said: 'Let me guess, this is going to be some postmodern relativist nonsense, isn't it?' That's Poisoning the Argument—they poisoned the well before I could drink. Now everything I say is heard through that filter. The argument never had a chance because the category was already condemned."

by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026