Arbitrary Logic

A form of reasoning that accepts asymmetrical, context‑free rules as legitimate constraints on argumentation. Arbitrary logic holds that one can legitimately demand evidence in one format while rejecting all others, cap opponent’s responses while keeping one’s own unlimited, or dismiss counter‑evidence by fiat (“I don’t accept that source because I said so”). It is “logic” that privileges power and persistence over coherence and fairness. Arbitrary logic often appears in debates where one participant has moderator privileges or social standing and can enforce their rules without reciprocity. It is logic stripped of consistency, reduced to a tool of control.

Example: “His arbitrary logic allowed him to say ‘that study doesn’t count because it was funded by X,’ while citing a blog post funded by Y. Consistency wasn’t the point; winning was.”

Arbitrary Logical System

A pseudo‑formal framework that codifies arbitrary argumentation into a set of “rules” that are applied selectively to disadvantage one side. In an arbitrary logical system, premises may be accepted or rejected without justification, inference rules may be suspended mid‑argument, and evidence standards may shift at will. The only consistent feature is asymmetry: what is required of the opponent is never required of oneself. While such a system is logically incoherent, it can be effective in online spaces where there is no referee or where the referee is biased. It is the logical shadow of attrition warfare.

Example: “The debate forum’s moderation enforced an arbitrary logical system: newcomers had to provide citations for every claim; veterans could post unsupported opinions. The rules were consistent only in who they disadvantaged.”

Arbitrary Logic by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal May 14, 2026