Skip to main content

idiot argument 

How an idiot argues with another person. Instead of using rational statements and facts, they spam the other person with mindless banter and stubborn ranting.
Rational Argument:

Person 1: I think that the Xbox 360 is better than the Wii because it has better hardware and more graphical power.

Person 2: Well I think the Wii is better than the 360 because it is more interactive and appeals more to casual gamers.

Idiot Argument:

Person 1: Well, I think the Wii is better than the Xbox 360 because...

Idiot: NO! NO! Shut the hell up. I said the Xbox 360 is better. NO! NO! Insert random group here says its better! NO! I'm right. Your wrong. Shut the hell up.
idiot argument by pea soup March 6, 2010
idiot argument mug front
Get the idiot argument mug.
See more merch

canadian argument

An argument where both parties involved insist that they are at fault, or are more sorry.
**Two people both reaching for the last cookie**
A: I'm so sorry.
B: No, please, I'm sorry.
A: No, I am sorry, I insist, you have the last piece.
B: Absolutely not, this is my fault, you take the last one!
C: This is such a Canadian Argument.
canadian argument by apeape28 March 20, 2017

Coal Miner's Argument 

A variant of the gambler's fallacy - "it is harder to dig yourself out of a hole than it is to dig deeper."
My friend Melvin won't stop buying Funko Pops - he says his collection won't sell for anything unless he has a complete set. I guess he's never heard of the coal miner's argument.
Coal Miner's Argument by Yegglemorph November 18, 2022

A Thymer Argument 

When Ones points in a argument are opinion based, have nothing to do with the topic, or is a hollow argument.
typically used when one is clearly wrong in an argument and in the moral wrong so one proceeds to spout bullshit as a self defense mechanism
Person 1: Well i may have joked About Your suicide attempt but you dated a girl me and this other guy think is Weird!
Person 2: dude that's such A Thymer Argument

motte-and-bailey argument 

Also called the motte-and-bailey fallacy. A sort of rhetorical bait-and-switch where one puts forward a controversial point, then claims that they're actually arguing something far less controversial if challenged. This is often done by giving something an agreeable name (e.g., claiming that people who oppose Black Lives Matter the group oppose black lives mattering as a basic concept).

First coined by the philosopher Nicholas Shackel in 2005 and popularized by Star Slate Codex in 2014. Named after a style of medieval castle, where the hillfort (motte) is surrounded by a walled village (bailey). If the bailey was overrun, defenders could fall back to the motte and better weather the attack.
"You don't like MAGA flags, huh? What's wrong with wanting America to be great?"
"Stop it, that's a motte-and-bailey argument and you know it."

Do you want to win the argument, or make a difference 

So much of our current social and political discourse is based on proving the other wrong i.e. winning the argument. We don't demonstrate enough empathy to understand where the "other" is coming from and the merits of their point. A black and white world is a construct of our own imagination and our desire to imprint our views on to others. It ignores the beauty that the synthesis or fusion of diverse ideas enables.
John had made a life out of proving people wrong. He took pride in being able to argue against any position and win. He was a talk show host. One night when he was grilling a guest who was making a point around having improved gun controls in place. John, barely let she finish her sentences, was adversarial and was not listening. At the end of the segment the guest said; "John, do you want to win the argument, or make a difference".

Puck to the Face Argument 

An argument that an individual will make despite the fact they don't believe the central premise of their own argument. An argument that's made just to argue.
This is such a puck to the face argument, Chris, you don't even believe that WWF wrestling is real.