Stupidest thing that someone has come back at you with in an argument.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

"U mad"

Worst part is, it pisses me off, leading to an endless cycle of shitposting and rage.

I got called racist the other day for saying something that really wasn't racist.

When a religious person has used one of the following phrases:

"I feel sorry for you."
"I'll pray for you."
"Your faith in science is no better than mine in religion"
"Well, the Bible says this..."
"The Bible is a legitimate source of information."

Etc, etc. The first two, especially, just really get under my skin. Really, really get under my skin. The rest is simply a response to my many different sources, from philosophy, history and scientific reasons it's highly unlikely there is no God, as if the two are equal.

Heronblade:
"Its just a book, you have no basis for knowing how accurate it is"

Poster that shall remain anonymous in a debate concerning evolution on another forum. Poster in question was speaking about a well accredited and widely used scientific journal, and had based nearly all of his previous arguments on passages from the bible. I might have considered the statement to have been made in an ironic fashion or perhaps in retaliation, but no one involved in the debate questioned the validity of his "source" even once.

Well, if it had just been one book, sure. Out of context it's actually a fairly valid point. Considering he used only one book and that book is known to be written long after the origin of the texts it's among the dumbest things I've ever seen.

Personally my dumbest encounter has been "Read the bible and tell me what it says" on the subject of evolution on and The Big Bang Theory. I proved that I knew the bible better than him and said that the bible actually had two different stories about the creation of the world and the animals jumbled together. Which he denied proving he had not read the bible properly and based his point of view on second hand information.

Diddy_Mao:
"Well if we turned into monkeys why are there still monkeys in the jungle?"

or

"Evolution is just a theory!"

These arguments completely knock the wind out of my sails.
Not because they're flawless in their impeccable logic but because I know that anyone who uses them is so ingrained in their own pig ignorance that any further discussion is pointless.

OK, Evolution is just a theory is one of those I really hate getting thrown at me. Because of this I have stopped using the word theory in the same way most people use it. Unless what I say is being thought by several others and there's no indications of it being incorrect I use hypothesis. Maybe one day people will know the true meaning of both words. A guy can dream.

Well lets see.
"Your gay."
"No one cares."
"I fucked your mum."
"Its my opinion, therefore it is not flawed."
"Your just flat out incorrect, heres several very shady sources agreeing with me."

These mostly happen online, mind you.

Heronblade:
"Its just a book, you have no basis for knowing how accurate it is"

Poster that shall remain anonymous in a debate concerning evolution on another forum. Poster in question was speaking about a well accredited and widely used scientific journal, and had based nearly all of his previous arguments on passages from the bible. I might have considered the statement to have been made in an ironic fashion or perhaps in retaliation, but no one involved in the debate questioned the validity of his "source" even once.

I think I was in that debate. So you basically ninja'd me to the awnser. Damn. Anyway, what this guy said. Having to put up with this kind of crap is what makes most atheists steriotype religious folks (I'm not saying I do it or that only atheists can be offended, mind you).

after saying you are not born any religion i got the reply "Religion is a part of your DNA it is your genetics!" O rly? Can you tell me the chromosome it is located or do i have to look that up in the wonderland dictionary?

After saying do not turn on the AC it is broken I got the reply "That does not mean it will not cool down the air!" Yeah, that is why is is broken... because it is not working, because it is not making the air cool.

"I don't care"
"Just because"

Also, someone tried to explain to me that I am apparently an asshole, and he proved this by repeating the point over and over again. In stead of backing his claim up with evidence, he just made up more completely stupid flaws which I apparently have.

When a person who runs out of bullshit to fuel their moronic argument, starts throwing up Image-Macros in hopes that it will somehow overcome my (reasoned and well articulated) conviction on a specific topic, fails and then says:

You are a real douche did you know that? There isn't a point to argue with you because your so fucking one set minded so why bother. LOL @ fail argument. There isn't an argument because my point is the only legit one as far as I am concerned.

Yup, after a really annoying back and forth, him bringing in some retarded pastry analogy (poor analogies are another thing that peeves me), of which I turned against him, and regular fits of gratuitous insults on his end (which I ignored), he then throws up obnoxious Image Macros and the final straw was after I said:

Ragsnstitches:

You just going to spam image-macros when you fail to make an argument?

I can't understand why someone would bother to even partake in an argument when they have no ground to stand on. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone starts diverting questions with increasingly more obnoxious responses, the validity of their argument falls to dust.

Blame EA for it. It's more common then you might think I saw someone blame EA for the RMAH in D3. I mean of coarse it wasn't Blizzard it wasn't even Activision it was the completely unrelated publisher who has nothing to do with the game.

Diddy_Mao:
"Well if we turned into monkeys why are there still monkeys in the jungle?"

or

"Evolution is just a theory!"

These arguments completely knock the wind out of my sails.
Not because they're flawless in their impeccable logic but because I know that anyone who uses them is so ingrained in their own pig ignorance that any further discussion is pointless.

And there I'd rage. Just... That bothers me to no end. There's no reply for that, you've lost that debate no matter how right you are. Anything like that. "It's just a theory".

Hmm... Stupidest still has to be "I don't believe in logic". I was flabbergasted. More of the same was the person saying there's no evidence for Big Bang, then loudly advocating the... Hypothesis? I'm not sure, there doesn't to me seem to be any evidence for... Anyway, the story in the bible.

Somewhat related, you always know you're in for a good time when someone (usually a fucking creationist) begins an argument with you about something by saying "I'm no scientist, but...".

As for come back at me with? "You clearly know nothing about history or how to use evidence!" argued by a man claiming the Bible was a consistent source of historical facts and that it was undeniable evidence that the world was only 6000 years old.

Religion is fun.

Diddy_Mao:
"Well if we turned into monkeys why are there still monkeys in the jungle?"

I have always wondered this. It doesn't make much sense too me. NOT saying evolutions not true though.

OT: When people just say "YOU probably wouldn't understand" even if you started the debate.

Diddy_Mao:

"Evolution is just a theory!"

I always take the Tim Minchin approach to that argument.
"It's good that you think that, it gives me hope that you feel the same way about the theory of gravity...And that you might just float the fuck away."

---

Any derivative of "u mad" when it comes down to arguments gets on my tits, it doesn't actually serve to piss me off that much if I'm honest, it's just...So you acknowledge you've lost this argument and are now resorting to meme spamming? Cool.

Someone told me that because there are more copies of the bible than there are written evidence of Ceaser that its true. I told them that by that logic I have a chance of getting to Hogwarts.

Whenever I comment on anything with an angry fanbase, -- Firefly, Blizzard, Transformers, Nostalgia Buffs in general, Repo: the Genetic Opera, etc -- I tend to get some good reactions from it.

I mentioned that a certain products feel unfinished, it tends to be my fault for expecting too much from the show. That its my fault for not being forgiving of the show's flaws.

I say that the writing is not stellar, the response is go back and listen again, or go back and read again.

I say that I've seen everything made for that franchise about a half dozen times, they tell me that it's my fault for not experiencing it with an open mind.

Then I tell them that you are doing a lousy job of defending their product, they tend to report me to moderators. In a couple of forums I got banned for no other reason that I did a better job defending my points than the people that got mad at me.

Well, considering most of my life revolves around proving myself right, with logic mind you, I may seek out fights, but by God I make sure my side's correct first, I have quite a few pet peeves as far as fail come backs go.

Firstly: Evolution is just a theory/ Why are there still apes around if evolution is true.

I hate this comeback more than anything else, I had this argument with a religious nut at my high school, and he pulled that one out, to which I didn't respond. Now though, I have a great comeback for it, which everyone should use in someone does pull it out 'We have the same ancestors, not the same parents' which might confuse them, but to really piss them off 'Apes are considered our 'cousins' not brothers or sisters, we went along a different evolutionary path than they did'. It will either A.) Enrage them, which is always funny. Or B.) Make them struggle to come up with something better, which will take a few mins, meaning you win.

Secondly: Show me proof that God exists/ There is no proof that there is a God.

This off-sets my first argument, but basicly I was arguing with my cousin who was an Atheist just because it was cool for him to be, not because he actually WAS one. We were arguing, and he came up with that gem, to which I curtly responded 'There doesn't need to be evidence, as long as someone believes in him, he exists'. I tried to use the concept 'I think, therefore I am' but apparently I did not word it clearly enough for people here. So! Basicly the concept is that no one can disprove God exists, it's one of those things that's impossible to disprove.

and Thirdly: I'm not for [insert argument case here] because it's not Christian.

I prefer this one more than the other ones, mostly because it, at least, doesn't mean that you are wrong in an argument. I heard this when talking about 'hot topic' subjects with her, and basicly she did not support those things because it was against her religion. I can respect that honestly, but when the day ends, it's all about what YOU do, and YOUR actions, not about what God does, or what your faith does. Everyone is an individual, and capable of making their own arguments, and cases, so a religion, or government shouldn't decide what is right, or wrong, for you.

GamerAddict7796:

Diddy_Mao:
"Well if we turned into monkeys why are there still monkeys in the jungle?"

I have always wondered this. It doesn't make much sense too me. NOT saying evolutions not true though.

Because there's more than one kind of primate, isn't there? Evolutionary paths split, and become different species. Thats why there is still 'monkeys in the jungle'.

Diddy_Mao:

"Evolution is just a theory!"

Those are fun. Some I've heard a lot include: "I would be winning all of these arguments with you if it wasn't for your goddamn SCIENCE!"

Of course the correct response after that is, "It's not Science's fault that you cannot debate."

"If you don't believe in god, then why are you talking about him so much, huh?"

All. My. Facepalms.

Everyone on the Escapist forum should read this thread, and then think long and hard about it next time they're about to say something in an argument thread.

Because right now, the most fitting response I can find to this thread is "Just go read the Escapist forums and see for yourselves."

But eh, personally I facepalm at pretty much everything related to arguing about religion. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but why are you taken seriously in adult society when the easter bunny and santa aren't? Etc.

Kahunaburger:
Generally the really stupid arguers just make the same assertion over and over, regardless of evidence to the contrary. If they're a participant in some sort of widespread stupidity (creationists, islamophobes, truthers, birthers, etc.) you can expand the list of assertions to five or so, and they might throw out some (discredited) canned evidence from a like-minded blog.

Basically, dogmatic types who don't think critically about things are terrible at reacting to arguments and finding evidence. Who knew?

This, completely. Also, for being the only mildly nonreligious individual in a family OF truthers, conspiracy theorists, and islamophobes, I've also taken note of a completely independent phenomenon - they're often not even able to understand the point you're trying to address. Let's bring up a sample scenario: They make point A, likely clutching a laptop to their chest. You make point B. They make point C as unfathomably irrelevant as their mind can muster. At this point, you are wondering as to whether point B has been fully regarded, or understood. They then go completely off on a tangent, likely say something about Dinosaurs, then stomp away in fury. It's almost as if they've been sanctioned and conditioned these responses are all-applicable. Perhaps it's just a lack of an ability to conjure applicable responses, or a fundamental misconception of the fact that arguments don't just have to offer points, they have to offer WEIGHTED points. Some fallacies are too easily disregarded. It's unfortunate.

Also, using emotions and ontological perspective as rebuttals in a field that simply can't respect them. (Layne Craig)

"Gears of war 1 was the best because it set the groudwork for the others"

My argument, Gears of war 1 was a rather bland way to start off the franchise. Gears 2 is the best because:

A. It has more than 4 other soldiers that are not characterized so you actually feel like you are in a war.
B. The plot is better, Defend Jacinto from the locust who are now pissed
C. The weapons feel more Gears of war, a flame thrower, a gatling gun
D. HORDE MODE
E. Game modes that are not basic deathmatch or CTF
F. Meat Bagging
G. Being able to actually do something when downed: Crawl away or Martyrdom
F. Alot more color than most shooters at the time (Besides Halo 3)
H. A proffesional writer is used for much better dialogue
I. This:

J. Chainsawing doens't put you in god mode

Andy Shandy:
I suppose it's not really an argument, but whenever I complain about about something, and somebody says "Oh well, it could be worse". Yes, I'm well aware things could be worse, a lot worse, but that does not automatically mean that I can not complain about something. If so the only person who is allowed to complain is the person who has it the worst in the world.

Yeah, I love people who throw out the "First-world problems" thing too (completely seriously, that is. I know people who will use it in a joking sense after complaining about their own inane problems, and I don't mind that). Yes, okay, I get it that it's not really a huge deal if my external hard-drive crashes and makes me lose all of the data I had on it, okay, but that doesn't mean I won't get pissed off that I just lost almost a terabyte of stuff.

I get that having headphones short out won't really actively make my day worse, provided I don't end up needing to listen to some crazy person prattle on with non sequiturs, but it doesn't mean that I won't be annoyed that I now need to go out and get a new pair of headphones.

I also get that having the internet/power go out for a few hours isn't going to end my life, but it doesn't mean that I'm not going to be bored as shit if it's already night-time and I can't find a flashlight.

Seives-Sliver:

This off-sets my first argument, but basicly I was arguing with my cousin who was an Atheist just because it was cool for him to be, not because he actually WAS one. We were arguing, and he came up with that gem, to which I curtly responded 'There doesn't need to be evidence, as long as someone believes in him, he exists'. Apparently he didn't understand the concept 'I think, therefore I am', and it confused the hell out of him, quite a show really.

Wait, what?

I believe in unicorns. Therefore, unicorns exist.

OhJohnNo:

Seives-Sliver:

This off-sets my first argument, but basicly I was arguing with my cousin who was an Atheist just because it was cool for him to be, not because he actually WAS one. We were arguing, and he came up with that gem, to which I curtly responded 'There doesn't need to be evidence, as long as someone believes in him, he exists'. Apparently he didn't understand the concept 'I think, therefore I am', and it confused the hell out of him, quite a show really.

Wait, what?

I believe in unicorns. Therefore, unicorns exist.

If you can't disprove it utterly, it could exist :3 Not to say that it -should- exist, I mean, I don't want to see Cthulu walking around, but no one can disprove that God exists, it's impossible to do.

Seives-Sliver:

OhJohnNo:

Seives-Sliver:

This off-sets my first argument, but basicly I was arguing with my cousin who was an Atheist just because it was cool for him to be, not because he actually WAS one. We were arguing, and he came up with that gem, to which I curtly responded 'There doesn't need to be evidence, as long as someone believes in him, he exists'. Apparently he didn't understand the concept 'I think, therefore I am', and it confused the hell out of him, quite a show really.

Wait, what?

I believe in unicorns. Therefore, unicorns exist.

If you can't disprove it utterly, it could exist :3 Not to say that it -should- exist, I mean, I don't want to see Cthulu walking around, but no one can disprove that God exists, it's impossible to do.

This is definitely true, but what you originally said seemed completely different. Not being able to disprove his existence is one thing, saying that he definitely exists because someone believes in him is quite another.

I've been told that homosexuality must be wrong because lots of Republican Americans think it is. *facepalm*

Seives-Sliver:

This off-sets my first argument, but basicly I was arguing with my cousin who was an Atheist just because it was cool for him to be, not because he actually WAS one. We were arguing, and he came up with that gem, to which I curtly responded 'There doesn't need to be evidence, as long as someone believes in him, he exists'. Apparently he didn't understand the concept 'I think, therefore I am', and it confused the hell out of him, quite a show really.

Ummm... I'm not sure you understand the concept of "I think, therefore I am" :S

OhJohnNo:

Seives-Sliver:

OhJohnNo:

Wait, what?

I believe in unicorns. Therefore, unicorns exist.

If you can't disprove it utterly, it could exist :3 Not to say that it -should- exist, I mean, I don't want to see Cthulu walking around, but no one can disprove that God exists, it's impossible to do.

This is definitely true, but what you originally said seemed completely different. Not being able to disprove his existence is one thing, saying that he definitely exists because someone believes in him is quite another.

Indeed, I probably could have worded that a tad bit better, but often enough Captain Hindsight doesn't visit me until hours, if not days after the fact.

Eamar:
I've been told that homosexuality must be wrong because lots of Republican Americans think it is. *facepalm*

Seives-Sliver:

This off-sets my first argument, but basicly I was arguing with my cousin who was an Atheist just because it was cool for him to be, not because he actually WAS one. We were arguing, and he came up with that gem, to which I curtly responded 'There doesn't need to be evidence, as long as someone believes in him, he exists'. Apparently he didn't understand the concept 'I think, therefore I am', and it confused the hell out of him, quite a show really.

Ummm... I'm not sure you understand the concept of "I think, therefore I am" :S

I understand the concept of it well enough, it's already been brought to my attention how I worded it rather poorly.

Seives-Sliver:

I understand the concept of it well enough, it's already been brought to my attention how I worded it rather poorly.

My point being that it's "I think therefore I am." For your example to work, it'd have to be God doing the thinking, not you.

Eamar:

Seives-Sliver:

I understand the concept of it well enough, it's already been brought to my attention how I worded it rather poorly.

My point being that it's "I think therefore I am." For your example to work, it'd have to be God doing the thinking, not you.

Well, I was trying to use it as analogy for how if a person believes in God, then God exists, rather than someone being able to disprove God. Which I fixed the post so it should be more sensible, or at the very least, less open to being picked apart.

Seives-Sliver:

Well, I was trying to use it as analogy for how if a person believes in God, then God exists, rather than someone being able to disprove God. Which I fixed the post so it should be more sensible, or at the very least, less open to being picked apart.

I see. Best steer clear of using philosophical concepts as analogies in future, I guess... leads to all kinds of headaches. It's a problem with philosophy in general- being picked apart is pretty much the nature of the beast :P

"Why even bother fighting for X when Y is a way bigger issue" I've hard this several times. Also people how use attack a persons grammar to make them out as an idiot instead of addressing the arguments presented.

Spectral Dragon:
"I don't believe in logic".

Sorry, what? This is the first time in a long while that my mouth just dropped. I cannot believe that someone said this.

OT: As usual, I get "You're gay" about a billion times in any given argument.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked