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