The worst argument you've ever heard

[Joby Baumann]

Worst argument ever heard? Anything on the escapist.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Someone made a post on facebook about how children die every day in other countries but nobody cares unless it is in 'Merica. I said something about how children in Africa die every day from various causes, and some guy replied "were those children in Africa in a school?". He got me there.

 

[Andre Rapp]

Wow, I actually have a video game related one. I have heard many bad arguments, but nothing ever compares to what comes out of the Bioware community, but the one that stands out the most is where someone on the forums claimed that being spawn camped by Sith players made the game "more immersive". That one had me laughing all week.

 

[krellagh]

Mitt Romney "I will create 3 million jobs by being tough on China" This was during one of his adverts, I still really would like to know how this was going to work.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

"________is subjective so you can't say that its qualities are bad."

This is a straw man point I hear a lot in the defense of video games and music. There are objective traits to everything and using the subjective opinion defense is a lazy way of saying, "but I liked it so there."

 

[TheBlueShotgun0]

So according to this guy, if you are indiffirent towards something or like it, and then find out something really bad about it, or something bad that can come from it, you should still be indiffirent/like it.

So you only just found out that guns can kill people? I'm sorry, but if we're talking about bad arguments, that ranks pretty high.

OP: My friends are pretty rational when engaged in a serious argument, so I don't have many bad ones. The worst in resent memory was when BlOPS the first was coming out and a friend argued that the zombie mode was pointless because World at War already had it. Never mind the new maps and guns.

 

[Savo]

This isn't probably the worst argument that I've heard in my life, but it's the one that's sticking out to me in recent memory: Ask atheists/non-believers/agnostics/other similiar groups where the universe came from. Not trying to start something, I'm not even religious, but that one has led to some jawdropping levels of bullshit in my experience. And before anyone says it, I am aware that religious responses to this question often lead to bullshit as well.

"________is subjective so you can't say that its qualities are bad."

This is a straw man point I hear a lot in the defense of video games and music. There are objective traits to everything and using the subjective opinion defense is a lazy way of saying, "but I liked it so there."

That one is pretty interesting to me because I've been thinking about it some lately. I fall on the side of "it's subjective" in most cases. There are objective qualities, such as the skill required to play complex instrumentation in music, or bugs in video-games, but when it comes to most everything else it comes down to what individuals like. I have heard people try to logically prove one story is objectively better than another and it's kinda ridiculous.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Pretty much anytime I hear people play specifics I really get irritated.
You know, when people say stuff like:
"Technically, I didn't say THAT."
Shut up.
We both know what you meant, and now you're trying to backpedal.

And while I'm still on the subject on stupid arguments, we've all seen stupid youtube (show comment) arguments but this one just boggles my mind with how long it is.
I actually clicked all of the "show comments" to see how long it was.
it started a month ago
and the latest reply was made 13 hours ago at the time of my posting.
Maybe some of you have seen worse but I have NEVER see a youtube argument go for this long.

Here's a link to the video if you want to see it for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U09JW5r3F10

 

[Ezekiel T Bluff]

anything someone ever said against transgender

I'm sorry, but I simply can't watch anything without smellovision. It just feels awkward...

EDIT: Sorry I just realised i used the wrong qouote. Ah well.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

You understand that the second amendment is there so the people can protect themselves against their own government if it becomes a tyranny right? That's the entire point of it. How is that at all antiquated or pointless?

Because I am willing to bet a reasonable sum of money that less than 5% of people buying guns are buying them so they can protect themselves in case those exact circumstance arise and yet will often quote the 2nd ammendment as the reason they should be entitled to one. It's not that the point of the ammendment is off (even if I'm preeeeeetty sure there was something about how they needed to be updated periodically which hasn't happened in centuries) it's that people aren't using it to support that argument.
They also generally aren't in a militia.

And? The second amendment is still there for the reasons I said, and it's damn important reason. There's no need to update it. If a government turns into an oppressive regime the people have a means to fight back. Simple as that. All these arguments about hunting, practice shooting, collecting guns or 'just because I can' or whatever other stuff doesn't matter. If they want to do that, go for it, but none of that is what the amendment is about in the end, and you'll notice how very few in the media ever talk about what it's really about.

OK, so, just so I'm clear the right to have guns (which once again, is when you are a part of a militia, which is a pretty important part of the f*cking ammendment) supercedes the obvious legal issues of providing someone with a gun? It is an entitlement that cannot be changed in case of the hypothetical scenario where the U.S government becomes a tyranny? Is this the position you are advocating here, that it's too important to consider tweaking? Ignoring the fact that the constitution is meant to change every few years and this very addition about guns was added in the third re-write?

 

[Tyler Trahan]

"I would prefer to hit a person with my car than an animal. At least the human knows better than to run in front of a moving car!"

I literally went lightheaded and thought I might pass out for a second. I was...so..so angry when I heard that

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

This isn't probably the worst argument that I've heard in my life, but it's the one that's sticking out to me in recent memory: Ask atheists/non-believers/agnostics/other similiar groups where the universe came from. Not trying to start something, I'm not even religious, but that one has led to some jawdropping levels of bullshit in my experience. And before anyone says it, I am aware that religious responses to this question often lead to bullshit as well.

"________is subjective so you can't say that its qualities are bad."

This is a straw man point I hear a lot in the defense of video games and music. There are objective traits to everything and using the subjective opinion defense is a lazy way of saying, "but I liked it so there."

That one is pretty interesting to me because I've been thinking about it some lately. I fall on the side of "it's subjective" in most cases. There are objective qualities, such as the skill required to play complex instrumentation in music, or bugs in video-games, but when it comes to most everything else it comes down to what individuals like. I have heard people try to logically prove one story is objectively better than another and it's kinda ridiculous.

The only way a story could be objectively better would be if one of the compared stories lacked character development or time consistency.

I take more ire at the fact that a lot of people will pull the subjectivity card when defending something video game related that is objectively mediocre due to stuff like poor controls or bugs that crash the game. That drives me up the wall because they act as if saying a view on a game is completely subjective when it is quite obviously not.

 

[legend of duty]

Knives cannot kill

 

[Beautiful Tragedy]

deleted text

wow where am i today? I read that as HAD not heard sorry

 

[dvd_72]

That no homosexual person ever contributed to society.

I swear someone said this to me with a straight face. I guess any who did don't count. And when I pointed a few, mainly the contributions of Alan Turing, he said that anything he did would have just been done by a straight person anyway.

Hang on, if something a gay person does could just as easily be done by a straight person, then ergo anything a straight person does could just as easily be done by a gay one! It seems he just inadvertently agreed with you.

 

[[REDACTED]]

Wow, I actually have a video game related one. I have heard many bad arguments, but nothing ever compares to what comes out of the Bioware community, but the one that stands out the most is where someone on the forums claimed that being spawn camped by Sith players made the game "more immersive". That one had me laughing all week.

That's nothing. I remember a thread in which someone raised the question of why time dilation was ignored in Mass Effect. The next thirteen or so replies were people angrily denying the theory of relativity.
I just... I...

 

[Lugbzurg]

"Videogames cause violence!"

Videogames are inanimate objects. If you're trying to say that playing videogames somehow causes people to become violent, might I point out that the very fact that instances of violence caused by someone who likes violent videogames can be documented long before the next one happens? The fact that they happen so slowly, and that all of them are caused by people who are insane, and not just due to the fact that they like videogames, is more that enough proof that violent videogames do not cause people to become violent.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I don't even have a good argument for this beyond asking for proof that God, or indeed anything, is circular in time.

Long answer:

Can you prove that time moves in a straight line?

Sadly, the only thing you can call the 'direction' of time is the change in entropy. Which would be fine, except that the statement "heat moves from hotter to cooler" is basically axiomatic: it could be the reverse, and you would never be able tell the difference.

"But I can remember the past, and not the future!" you cry, "and the passage of my memories show that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is valid in the manner of it's conventional interpretation!"

Well noted, but you have neglected memory skepticism: how do you know that your memories are even slightly legitimate? After all, the only 'record' you have are your memories, and if your assumptions about time were wrong, your memories of the 'future' would simply fade away on the universes march toward the Big Bang [small](Big Crunch?)[/small]

And you would be none the wiser for it, for in truth you have only a single moment in time available to you: indeed, you are not reading these words. You are simply remembering the act of reading them, and what they meant to you. For all you know, there is no progression of time at all, and all you have is this one infinitely small moment of time in which you experience your so-called 'memories' of the 'past', and start to realize that you know nothing at all for certain.
[sup]And don't even try to invoke Occam's Razor: Physics is so riddled with philosophical assumptions that you might as well invoke the Old Gods of Atlantis.[/sup]

Short Answer:

"Proof"?

Ha ha ha.

Scintillating, dear chap (and in fact I've often thought that this could be one moment and everything I remember is artificial), but the point is it's not up to me to discern the nature of time, it's up to the other person to not only dicern the nature of time, but also how God behaves in time.