Instant Lose Arguments

[Travis Retriever]

I've been meaning to make this thread for a while now.  Basically, it's the thread where, if the person uses these arguments/phrases/fallacies, they can be said to have lost the debate, posted with the exceptions (if any exist;  Quoting them, or using them sarcastically/ironically/to be silly/in jest being sort of a given).

I'll start with the most obvious one:  Godwin's Law.  Whenever someone is compared to Hitler/the Nazis.  It's a cheap/weak cop out. And beyond cliche'ed.
The exception:  When the person who this is used against actually *is* a Nazi or is doing something that they were (e.g. being a nationalist + a socialist...hey, if the glove fits, eh?)

Though, nowadays it seems ISIS is the one used instead of the Nazis or Hitler...same idea.


Appeal to Slavery.  Explained here:  https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg2942#msg2942 including exceptions, so I won't go into detail here.


Any reference to "privilege" or "mansplaining" (in the SJW/feminist sense).  As soon as these terms are brought up, the person using them has admitted to losing.


Any kind of post-modernist bullshit.  An example:  https://www.facebook.com/TravisRetriever/posts/1612346009026343?pnref=story The later comments left by Barry here.
Because in addition to being a self detonating argument, it's also special pleading.  If "our perceptions of reality are subjective" or whatever, and language is arbitrary, then why is THAT assertion of reality/language not arbitrary and wrong?  Hell, I could just link to Stefan Molyneux's videos on Nihilism (and why it's bullshit) and knock off for lunch.  I would link to his videos on the "Salvation of Philosophy" where he made the case rather well on self detonating statements...but he made them private for some reason. >.<*

And related to that, any attempt to redefine words in this fashion.  Anarcho-Communists/Socialist/Syndicalists I find to be the worst with this.  I bring up that this or that is force and they say, "Well force is subjective/it varies per individual/libertarianism doesn't mean the same thing to each person (often while making an exception for THEIR meaning of it, natch.)
In fact, this is one of the few arguments where I just drop it.  This person is too far gone to have a productive conversation with.  I might be a confrontational dickhead, but even I have to draw the line somewhere.


"Free Market/Libertarian Fundie" "Free Market/Libertarian religion"
Translated to English: "I can't be bothered to take 10 minutes out of my miserable life to see what is actually being proposed and so I'll just whip out these terms in a weak attempt to sound smart."


"Common Sense!"
Is a fallacy for a damn good reason.  Also, just what does that even mean?  Like, seriously?  I wasn't aware we had a borg collective consciousness.  Now, if you want to be more specific and say something like.  Unless you're talking about a common language (e.g. English, Spanish, etc); or something of which the denial of which is a self detonating statement (see above).  Or something that, to deny it indicates belief in belief, I really don't see this as anything but a cop-out.  Of course, you'd just call it what it is in that case, so...point still stands. :3


I'm also half tempted to give any kind of "you're pathetic" kind of ad hominems as well.   You know, "LOL YOU'RE JUST A LOSER BASEMENT DWELLER MRA FAT VIRGIN LOSER RAPIST PEDOPHILE WITH A SMALL PENIS! YOUR MALE TEARS ARE DELICIOUS LAWL!"  and yes, this applies in the opposite direction too.  e.g. "mentally disabled landwhale, bossy, welfare queen, etc" yeah, you get the idea.  Just because it's so cliched.  Folks, if you're THAT lacking in original thought, I have no reason to even communicate with you.


And last but not least:  "YOU NEED TO BE OPEN MINDED!" when used as a fallacy:  https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg22384#msg22384
Translation:  "The skeptic is closed minded for not unconditionally accepting what I vapidly assert as absolute truth, but I'm not a closed minded pillock for considering the possibility that I'm wrong."


Wow! That wasn't as...succinct as I thought it would be.  Oh well.

So what kind of instant lose arguments can you think of?

[MrBogosity]

Any reference to "privilege" or "mansplaining" (in the SJW/feminist sense).  As soon as these terms are brought up, the person using them has admitted to losing.

Monday, 5pm, my YouTube channel. All I'm saying for now...

And the one that'll go up on Tuesday is probably another one in that vein. But again, all I'm saying for now...

(Tease tease tease, shill shill shill...)

[dallen68]

I'd also point out that "arbitrary" does not mean "wrong". It simply means there isn't/wasn't a thought out reason behind "thing"/ "decision".

Along the same lines, sometimes people mean different things when they use words (in this case "libertarian"), the reason for pointing this out (for honest debaters anyway) is to agree to a definition of (word) for the purposes of THAT conversation, so you're talking about the same thing.

[MrBogosity]

Along the same lines, sometimes people mean different things when they use words (in this case "libertarian"), the reason for pointing this out (for honest debaters anyway) is to agree to a definition of (word) for the purposes of THAT conversation, so you're talking about the same thing.

And when someone steadfastly refuses to do so (as we've seen on my recent videos I Am a Libertarian Fundamentalist/Extremist), you know that his ignorance and strawman arguments are deliberate, and not an honest mistake.

[Travis Retriever]

I found another one.  Any time someone accuses you of being a shill.  Whether it be for NASA, big pharma, Monsanto, the Koch Brothers, or whatever.  If someone is THAT desperate to try and discredit you, it's safe to say they've lost the argument.

[dallen68]

I found another one.  Any time someone accuses you of being a shill.  Whether it be for NASA, big pharma, Monsanto, the Koch Brothers, or whatever.  If someone is THAT desperate to try and discredit you, it's safe to say they've lost the argument.

Going along with my point from before, even if you are a "shill" (I'm not exactly sure what's meant by that), it doesn't mean you're wrong. Using that as an argument is similar to saying "Travis is wrong because he's a 'triever" (As opposed to a 'mation, I guess). 97/100 it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Also, I would put any argument that attempts to discredit the speaker, rather than the argument itself, onto the "potential instant lose" pile. Even if the speaker IS a lying, troll, shill, SJW feminist doesn't mean that they're argument is invalid (on that specific point, anyway).

[bp_28]

I found another one.  Any time someone accuses you of being a shill.  Whether it be for NASA, big pharma, Monsanto, the Koch Brothers, or whatever.  If someone is THAT desperate to try and discredit you, it's safe to say they've lost the argument.

Why would we be shilling for NASA if we don't support as a government funded program!?
Anyone who uses this argument is not only stupid, but also unknowledgeable about the person he's debating.

[evensgrey]

Why would we be shilling for NASA if we don't support as a government funded program!?
Anyone who uses this argument is not only stupid, but also unknowledgeable about the person he's debating.

Anti-vaxers, moon hoaxers, statists (I once had a guy who was a statist moon hoaxer, you could tell because he claimed things being reported in newspapers was reason to believe it didn't happen), and other assorted fucktards wouldn't be making the claims they make if they knew things.

[MrBogosity]

Why would we be shilling for NASA if we don't support as a government funded program!?

Because we don't believe for one second that there's any possible way they could have faked the moon landings.

[bp_28]

Also, anyone who believes any company can be a natural monopoly
[yt]U42HKyc4PP0[/yt]