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.

Argumentation 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!

argumentation by Fletch July 16, 2003

Argumentation Logic

A discipline that studies the structure, rules, and strategies of persuasive argumentation in natural language, rather than formal mathematical proof. It draws on rhetoric, dialectics, pragmatics, and informal logic. Key concepts include argument schemes (e.g., argument from authority, analogy, cause), burden of proof, argumentation frameworks, and fallacies (ad hominem, straw man, slippery slope). Argumentation logic is not a single formal system but a toolkit for analyzing and evaluating real-world debates, from courtrooms to social media comments. It acknowledges that people often argue using incomplete information, implicit premises, and persuasive tactics – not formal syllogisms. In online debates, “argumentation logic” is invoked to shift focus from pure logical validity to practical persuasiveness and dialectical fairness. It reminds participants that winning an argument is not the same as proving a theorem.

Example: “His deductive argument was valid, but she used argumentation logic to point out that he had misrepresented her position (straw man) and that his premise was implausible. ‘Logic isn’t just about form; in real arguments, relevance and fairness matter.’”

Argumentation Logic by Dumu The Void May 27, 2026

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"

Stonelicker Argumentation by Abdool8 October 23, 2024

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

Attrition Argumentation

A form of argumentation, common on social media platforms like Reddit, Discord, X/Twitter, and YouTube comment sections, where the goal is not to persuade or reach truth but to exhaust the opponent into submission or madness. Practitioners use a battery of tactics: sealioning (persistent, bad‑faith questioning), moving the goalpost, moving the proofpost, exhaustive induction (demanding infinite details), fallacy fallacy (dismissing valid points because of a minor logical slip), objective bias (claiming one’s own view is simply “reality”), and unbiased bias (pretending to be neutral while systematically attacking one side). Attrition argumentation weaponises time and energy: the opponent must endlessly respond, and when they finally snap or withdraw, the attritionist declares victory. It turns dialogue into a war of stamina, not reason.

Example: “He asked her for a source, she provided it; he asked for a better source, she gave a meta‑analysis; then he asked for raw data from every participant. That’s attrition argumentation: win by exhausting, not by evidence.”

Attrition Argumentation by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal May 14, 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."

Law of Impossible Argumentation by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026