Every political argument you've ever seen

In reply to friedgreencorrado:

Gay slur.

pie, pie, PIE!!!!

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Pseudo-intellectual posing because the non-argument caused others to make gay slurs.

Curmudgeon wrote: Half baked ill thought out 'rebuttal' tinged with a hint of personal attack.

No. All sarcasm.

JoeyM wrote: pie, pie, PIE!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DV-PvCE-_A

N Sperlo wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Half baked ill thought out 'rebuttal' tinged with a hint of personal attack.

No. All sarcasm.

Due to the lack of a sarcasm emoticon, accusatory post comparing opponent to a really bad Teutonic political party of the last century or to a eastern Slavic party which landed on the ash heap of history.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Triumphantly invoking meaningless internet "law" about referring to the political parties previously mentioned.

In reply to friedgreencorrado:

Oh no you di'int! Yo' momma!

I'm throwing down the "in before the lock."

Y'all are all so full of bull hockey it isn't even funny. Everyone knows that (blank) is better than (blank) at just about everything. If (blank) doesn't win this (blank) the the world will (blank) because (blank) is bound to (blankety blank blank).

You know what to do with that.

Curmudgeon wrote: In reply to friedgreencorrado: Oh no you di'int! Yo' momma!

Irrelevant website link of the history of "trading the dozens" followed by equally irrelevant link to a selection of Yo Momma jokes.

Actually, those are kind of interesting.

EDIT: language in links may be NSFW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dozens
http://www.ahajokes.com/yo_mama_jokes.html

EastCoastMojo wrote: Sarcastic remark.

Link to Argument Sketch.

In reply to Knurled:

Oh, no. This (link to another argument sketch) contradicts yours and is thus correct. Or if you don't believe that one, here's another (link to The Onion sketch which protagonist didn't check and thus does not realize is a parody).

Knurled wrote:

EastCoastMojo wrote: Sarcastic remark.

Link to Argument Sketch.

Your link is broken.

EastCoastMojo wrote:

Knurled wrote:

EastCoastMojo wrote: Sarcastic remark.

Link to Argument Sketch.

Your link is broken.

Weird technical explanation of how board software screws up links, followed by alternative link to the same material.

Why is any of this going on after the Nazis were brought up? If anything it should just be personal attacks.

Weird technical explanation does not change the fact that OP is wrong, wrong, wrong.

(Favorite of the 'aha' jokes: 'Yo' mama so short you can see her feet in her license photo!'. )

EastCoastMojo wrote:

Knurled wrote:

EastCoastMojo wrote: Sarcastic remark.

Link to Argument Sketch.

Your link is broken.

Now see here, if you're going to just SAY "Sarcastic remark" instead of making one, then I'm going going to SAY "Link to Argument Sketch" instead of making one.

(see, now I'm posting a picture that says "that'sthejoke.jpg" instead of just typing that'sthejoke.jpg instead of actually posting the Ranier Wolfcastle image)

(Alternatively, I could have just posted "No it isn't.", which would be taking the opposite side of the Argument. ooh, meta)

LAME.

Lurker chiming in late to completely miss the point of the argument.

Anti-stance wrote: Why is any of this going on after the Nazis were brought up? If anything it should just be personal attacks.

Twice! I have no idea why those [pejorative term] people keep going

Curmudgeon wrote: Weird technical explanation does not change the fact that OP is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Um, dude, you are the OP, aren't you?

Weird technical explanation can't change that no matter how you spin it.

OP LOSES CONTROL COMPLETELY AT BEING BACKED INTO A RHETORICAL CORNER, GOES ALL CAPS WITH WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!!!!

Toyman01 wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Weird technical explanation does not change the fact that OP is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Um, dude, you are the OP, aren't you? Weird technical explanation can't change that no matter how you spin it.

Poorly evidenced conspiracy theory that spins the weird technical explanation in a way that the credulous will support.

BACK AT YA MR OP!!!! YO MOMMA...

EastCoastMojo wrote: LAME.

Reminds prior participant that they said they were leaving the discussion. Link to individual post from prior participant as "evidence".

Seriously though, ECM: The reason I'm half-way good at this is because I've actually done about half of it elsewhere.

Link to xkcd cartoon about someone being wrong on the internet..