Points you can't argue against?

[crudus]

You can't argue opinions or beliefs for various reasons (most of them leading to a poisoned well fallacy).

You can argue against this point.

You didn't make a point. You are right, you can't argue against something that doesn't exist. However the terms of the topic were not met.

1 = 1... argue with that, i dare you

Easy, define one without using itself in the definition.

(do you know how many books are written about that very statement?)

 

[delet]

"You're in Denial"

If you say that, you can't loose your argument. If they say "I'm not in denial!" They denied it. They're in denial. If they says "Ok. I'm in denial." They admitted it. They're in denial, so they're in denial.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You can't argue opinions or beliefs for various reasons (most of them leading to a poisoned well fallacy).

You can argue against this point.

You didn't make a point. You are right, you can't argue against something that doesn't exist. However the terms of the topic were not met.

The terms of the topic where if I knew something that couldn't be argued against. I found that something.

 

[crudus]

"You're in Denial"

If you say that, you can't loose your argument. If they say "I'm not in denial!" They denied it. They're in denial. If they says "Ok. I'm in denial." They admitted it. They're in denial, so they're in denial.

So your point is attempting to strawman the opponent? That isn't a very good point at all.

 

[delet]

"You're in Denial"

If you say that, you can't loose your argument. If they say "I'm not in denial!" They denied it. They're in denial. If they says "Ok. I'm in denial." They admitted it. They're in denial, so they're in denial.

So your point is attempting to strawman the opponent? That isn't a very good point at all.

My point is that you can't argue against a point defended by "You're in denial" as any answer you choose puts you right back into the category of "You're in denial." If you can't get past a singular point within an argument you can move ahead and the argument becomes pointless until one side admits defeat, which is usually the person "in denial" as they get fed up with being "in denial"

And that's my point.

(I admit, I had to look up strawman. I don't think that's the case though. I'm disproving my opponents ideas through a loop that is impossible to refute while Strawman would make my opponents ideas harder to accept? Correct me if I'm wrong.)

"You're in Denial"

If you say that, you can't loose your argument. If they say "I'm not in denial!" They denied it. They're in denial. If they says "Ok. I'm in denial." They admitted it. They're in denial, so they're in denial.

How have you drawn that conclusion? Would be a suitable return.

That completely depends on the conversation being held. Truly, if I have nothing else to resort to I can always take out some Illogical Logic which, if used correctly, can easily shatter a mind or two.

 

[crudus]

You can't argue opinions or beliefs for various reasons (most of them leading to a poisoned well fallacy).

You can argue against this point.

You didn't make a point. You are right, you can't argue against something that doesn't exist. However the terms of the topic were not met.

The terms of the topic where if I knew something that couldn't be argued against. I found that something.

Too bad that something is nothing which (arguably) doesn't fulfill the topic.

"You're in Denial"

If you say that, you can't loose your argument. If they say "I'm not in denial!" They denied it. They're in denial. If they says "Ok. I'm in denial." They admitted it. They're in denial, so they're in denial.

So your point is attempting to strawman the opponent? That isn't a very good point at all.

My point is that you can't argue against a point defended by "You're in denial" as any answer you choose puts you right back into the category of "You're in denial." If you can't get past a singular point within an argument you can move ahead and the argument becomes pointless until one side admits defeat, which is usually the person "in denial" as they get fed up with being "in denial"

And that's my point.

(I admit, I had to look up strawman. I don't think that's the case though. I'm disproving my opponents ideas through a loop that is impossible to refute while Strawman would make my opponents ideas harder to accept? Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Well if you say "you are in denial" and the person say "I am not" (and actually isn't) if you say "hah, fucker! You are in denial since you denied it" it is a strawman since it creates the illusion of a defeated opponent.

ex.
"Edison was better, you are just in denial"
"I am not"
"That just proves my point. Therefore Edison r0xxored Tesla!"

That is the strawman in action.

 

[crudus]

*double post, my bad*

 

[delet]

*snip*

Well if you say "you are in denial" and the person say "I am not" (and actually isn't) if you say "hah, fucker! You are in denial since you denied it" it is a strawman since it creates the illusion of a defeated opponent.

ex.
"Edison was better, you are just in denial"
"I am not"
"That just proves my point. Therefore Edison r0xxored Tesla!"

That is the strawman in action.

I see. So a strawman is a way to win an argument whether or not your point is correct. I'll keep that in mind.

Though it's still a point you can't argue against, no matter how false it may be.

 

[crudus]

You can't argue against this statement.
If you wish to be pedantic.

What about, 'Yhis sentence is incorrect'?

I will admit I had to look up "yhis". And it isn't nice to make fun of our very own Yhis Quintero or those poor people that suffer from that terrible affliction by telling them that their sentences are incorrect.

*snip*

Well if you say "you are in denial" and the person say "I am not" (and actually isn't) if you say "hah, fucker! You are in denial since you denied it" it is a strawman since it creates the illusion of a defeated opponent.

ex.
"Edison was better, you are just in denial"
"I am not"
"That just proves my point. Therefore Edison r0xxored Tesla!"

That is the strawman in action.

I see. So a strawman is a way to win an argument whether or not your point is correct. I'll keep that in mind.

Though it's still a point you can't argue against, no matter how false it may be.

The argument against it was the fact that it was a strawman.

(for the record a "strawman" is a logic fallacy and is a way to show someone that you can't win an argument unless you attack a weaker one. A real example:

A: We should lower restriction on gun control
B: A wants to sell guns to everyone regardless of background checks or age!)

 

[Twilight_guy]

The sky as it appears to a non-color blind human being is blue. This can be observed and proved correct in a repeatable experiment.

 

[crudus]

You can't argue against this statement.
If you wish to be pedantic.

What about, 'Yhis sentence is incorrect'?

I will admit I had to look up "yhis". And it isn't nice to make fun of our very own Yhis Quintero or those poor people that suffer from that terrible affliction by telling them that their sentences are incorrect.

I am inclined to think you are joking. However I do find it hilarious that you are the same person that had such an issue with strawmen.

Regardless, a simple glance down to the keyboard, the position of the letter Y in relation to the letter T, and a little common sense would solve the conundrum. That is, of course assuming you are serious, which I don't.

I was just reading the sentence that was presented to me in a humorous fashion. I was not weakening it's stance to try to defeat it.
>.>

<.<

I will however point out that that statement isn't making a point. Just stating a fact which in my opinion avoids half of the op's original requirements.

 

[gbemery]

You can't spell slaughter without laughter

you can if you're dyslexic... slotter

damn, ummm how bout you can't spell oh without an 'o'? huh beat that dyslexia

au

I don't believe that makes the same sound

You can't spell slaughter without laughter

you can if you're dyslexic... slotter

Technically your not spelling slaughter. Your spelling a word close to it but the definition would be completely wrong.

gracias