The worst argument you've ever heard

[TheDoctor455]

Hmm... pretty much any pro-god argument really... but this one takes the cake...

"Well, God was well within his rights to drown the world for 40 days and 40 nights because everyone was evil back then except for Noah and his family."

Me: "Erm... how do you know they were all evil?"

Them: "Because the Bible said so."

Me: "The Bible... that you believe God ghost-wrote?"

Them: "Yes."

Me (facepalming at this point) : "So they were evil because God said they were?"

Them: "Er..."

Me: "So all of the children and their grandmothers were all evil?"

Them: "Umm..."

Me: "And therefore deserved to burn and choke and die in hell for eternity?"

Them: "Well... God works in mysterious ways."

Me: "Cruel ways more like. And you worship this git because...?"

Them: "I was raised to!"

Me: "Right..." (walks away in disgust)

 

[Acton Hank]

Worst argument ever:'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

I don't see how the argument is inaccurate.

I'm pretty sure that if you destroyed all the guns in the world the murder rate would plummet for a short while and then people would just start killing each other again with baseball bats, chainsaws, knives and other common household appliances.

You don't see it? Ok then.
In itself the sentence is valid. A gun will not kill a person without another person holding it.
This is not however an argument pro gun posession. It is not even an argument. It is a statement. If it were an argument one could easily say: nukes for everyone because nukes dont kill people. People kill people. There is absolutely no difference at all. Except that nukes have the potential of killing a lot more people then guns. The same comparison can be made that guns can kill a LOT more people than a baseball bat can.

So yes it is a stupid argument because it is not an argument. Don't give people access to items which sole purpose is to kill stuff. That is what guns are designed to do. kill. No normal person would need something in its posession that is only good for killing. THAT is an argument.

In that context what you say makes sense but by itself it could be interpreted in a manner of different ways, please clarify next time.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

I had a pretty bad KONY 2012 argument with one of those Like the group and Share it on Facebook and the world will be saved types. I said that Invisible Children's spending seemed a bit shady, and that although the message given was good, it was years late. And that liking it on Facebook will do nothing. I also argued that people were just looking for their moral high and would move on to their new cause soon enough after contributing absolutely nothing to the cause. They argued with idiotic fallacies, and it ended with the 'Thats your opinion line'. I did go fishing for that argument to be fair.

 

[lacktheknack]

Me, a Cashier: "I don't think we should keep throwing the grocery shrink out as it expires. Most of it is still good. We should send it down to the food stations downtown who will use it today, so we don't waste so much."

Random Girl Buying Stuff: "But wouldn't that mean that we starve the seagulls?"

To this day, I have no idea what she was smoking.

So a random stranger and a random seagull are starving, and you have one piece of shrimp.
Do you

A)Feed the shrimp to the human.

B)Feed the shrimp to the seagull.

C)Eat the shrimp yourself.

D)Use the shrimp as bait to catch the seagull, which you then roast and feed to the human.

D is ideal, but since my hunting skills are nil, I guess I pick A, as pathetic as it is.

 

[Johnny Impact]

My Christian uncle trying to convert me by saying, "Look at the facts."

Oh, shall we? Shall I remind you your book was cobbled together by church elders from a wide selection of scriptural material to present their, and only their view of things? Shall I remind you there is not one molecule of evidence to support anything you believe? Shall I remind you the Greeks, the Vikings, the Aztecs, and every other ancient civilization thought their gods were real? Shall I ask you to define, in clear, irrefutable terms, what you have that all those other faiths didn't? Shall I demolish your quaint mythology brick by brick?

No, my good sir, that is what you DON'T want.

 

[Arakasi]

Prepare yourselves, this has video.

...Yep.

So he completely ignores the concept that, according to the Theory of Evolution, we evolved from monkeys which by stereotype eat bananas like mad, and thus would've evolved to hold them better?

I'd daresay that the banana's themselves would have evolved to be more easily accessable by monkeys.
The following is just speculation on my part, but it is probably backed up by evidence somewhere.

Being that monkeys would love to eat fruit as it is high in all the good stuff, they would eat whichever fruit is the easiest, and most packed full of nutrients. Bananas would fit this category. Why is it advantageous for the banana to evolve to be easily eaten?
It's possible the seeds survive in the digestive tract of the monkey, so when the thing defacates, the banana seed has a very viable growth medium, and is also likely far away from the original banana tree from which it grew.
So any banana that could not be held as easily or opened as easily, likely fell short from the tree and did not have as much survivability as a banana which possibly traveled miles and is given a growth medium.

All this being said, I don't know if banana seeds survive the digestive tract, nor whether or not that is their main method of allowing their offspring to survive. Merely an interesting hypothesis.

 

[Orange12345]

On the OP's gun related note "If we put restrictions on guns people will just buy them illegally, so whats the point" Oh ok I guess we should make selling meth or crack legal to because if people really want it they will get it so whats the fucking point

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

People were all like "cats are better than dogs"

And I was allll li'e "naw dog, dogs"

And they went all "uh-uh dog, cats"

I was like "*****-dog, I slap yo' ho"

Fo'shizzle.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Yeah, that second amendment. "Well regulated milita..." and all. Also, when it was adopted in 1791, firearms were single-shot muskets or pistols. They had bayonettes on them, because reloading sometimes took long enough for the enemy to run over and attack you. One can only imagine what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about it if he had seen assault rifles or just a standard 15+ cartridge Glock.

I'm really glad I'm not the only who's read the damn thing; I find it weird how no-one mentions that militia part in the arguments we have here.

OT: "Homosexuality is wrong, we need to ban it because being gay is hereditary"
Which is amazing because the very premise would imply you WANT being gay to be legal so there are less of them.
Maximum argument flaws!

 

[SmegInThePants]

People who argue for prayer in schools in the U.S.

These are usually very right wing, very christian, very fundamentalist sorts. They don't think it through though.

Trouble is, these same people would probably also be the *most* disturbed by finding out that islamic and hindu and all sorts of other prayers would then also be allowed in their schools. What would they think of their kid coming home and telling them about how they want to pray to mecca like their cool new friends in school do. hehe. Or they want to be a witch like the cool girl sarah and prance around naked in the forest. They somehow seem to think that the right, if they won their argument, would only apply to their religion. The way it is now probably helps them more than anything in regards to their kids, it keeps them isolated from competing religions that use all the same tricks to recruit people that their religion does.

I'm an atheist and it almost makes me want to support prayer in schools, just to see the fun ensue. I wonder what scientologists do? The only disturbing thing to me would be the time it takes away from education. But we already have a lot of that w/sports obsessions and straight up busy work.

So anyways, to bring it around to the main point, is that the very people arguing for prayer in schools would probably be the most offended by it were it actually implemented.

 

[direkiller]

an augment to keep the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse

The first amendment is not there to protect the governmental from the church it is there to protect the church from the government. So 10 commandment in front of goverment building is fine and removing them would violate the first amendment.

Needless to say he did not even know what the establishment clause was

 

[bat32391]

Well I live in Texas, so I usually can't go a day without hearing something that is stupid a hell. But the one that really takes the cake.

I was talking to my grandfather about evolution or something in public then this dumb ***** told me that anything that contradicts the bible is a lie and dinosaurs were tricks placed in the ground by satan to steer the true believers off the path of God.

I swear I'm not making this shit up, its like a breeding ground for stupid down here.

yeah i am not a super militant atheist
i believe in a god in an agnostic kinda way
a weird mixture of the 3 most popular monotheistic beliefs systems right now
because they are good learning tools on how to be , not a dick

but this lady , wow, what happened afterward?

i have had women argue to me that abortion is always wrong, and yes about the rape and other horrible parts.

I know what you mean I have a similar belief system, but after she butted in my grandfather told her to mind her own damn business because he didn't want to start an argument about this crap with a stranger.

He really doesn't like people butting into his conversations.

 

[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.

 

[Redingold]

Prepare yourselves, this has video.

...Yep.

So he completely ignores the concept that, according to the Theory of Evolution, we evolved from monkeys which by stereotype eat bananas like mad, and thus would've evolved to hold them better?

I'd daresay that the banana's themselves would have evolved to be more easily accessable by monkeys.
The following is just speculation on my part, but it is probably backed up by evidence somewhere.

Being that monkeys would love to eat fruit as it is high in all the good stuff, they would eat whichever fruit is the easiest, and most packed full of nutrients. Bananas would fit this category. Why is it advantageous for the banana to evolve to be easily eaten?
It's possible the seeds survive in the digestive tract of the monkey, so when the thing defacates, the banana seed has a very viable growth medium, and is also likely far away from the original banana tree from which it grew.
So any banana that could not be held as easily or opened as easily, likely fell short from the tree and did not have as much survivability as a banana which possibly traveled miles and is given a growth medium.

All this being said, I don't know if banana seeds survive the digestive tract, nor whether or not that is their main method of allowing their offspring to survive. Merely an interesting hypothesis.

Bananas don't contain seeds.

The real reason that bananas appear to be designed to be eaten by humans is that they were.

They were designed by artificial selection over a period of hundreds of years that turned the natural banana, which looks like this [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg], into the one we see today, with its ergonomic shape that so baffles Ray Comfort, and containing no seeds.

 

[Arakasi]

Prepare yourselves, this has video.

...Yep.

So he completely ignores the concept that, according to the Theory of Evolution, we evolved from monkeys which by stereotype eat bananas like mad, and thus would've evolved to hold them better?

I'd daresay that the banana's themselves would have evolved to be more easily accessable by monkeys.
The following is just speculation on my part, but it is probably backed up by evidence somewhere.

Being that monkeys would love to eat fruit as it is high in all the good stuff, they would eat whichever fruit is the easiest, and most packed full of nutrients. Bananas would fit this category. Why is it advantageous for the banana to evolve to be easily eaten?
It's possible the seeds survive in the digestive tract of the monkey, so when the thing defacates, the banana seed has a very viable growth medium, and is also likely far away from the original banana tree from which it grew.
So any banana that could not be held as easily or opened as easily, likely fell short from the tree and did not have as much survivability as a banana which possibly traveled miles and is given a growth medium.

All this being said, I don't know if banana seeds survive the digestive tract, nor whether or not that is their main method of allowing their offspring to survive. Merely an interesting hypothesis.

Bananas don't contain seeds.

The real reason that bananas appear to be designed to be eaten by humans is that they were.

They were designed by artificial selection over a period of hundreds of years that turned the natural banana, which looks like this [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg], into the one we see today, with its ergonomic shape that so baffles Ray Comfort, and containing no seeds.

Facinating. Thanks for the information.
Though yellow bananas do contain seeds, just non-functioning ones. Apparently.

 

[Emperor Nat]

Most religious arguments are stupid. Largely, I think, because the people who are arguing don't fully understand their own religion.

This. I'm a Christian, and unashamedly so, but a lot of theology is far more nuanced than the layman often presents it to be. Things like "God wrote the Bible" are the obvious ones - it's vast oversimplification of the doctrine of divine inspiration. The problem is people don't understand divine inspiration and think that God literally sat down and wrote the thing on paper and handed it to someone.

OT: Along the same lines, any argument based on someone misunderstanding someone else's religion.

More specific than that...?

Well, I was once in my A-Level Classics class taking part in a class-wide debate about whether Tiberius was a good Emperor or not. My point was that although he executed people to get hold of their money, the crushing financial problems in Rome sort've justified it. (This isn't necessarily accurate, but I'd been assigned the 'pro-Tiberius' by the teacher.)

His response was

"But you're a Christian, you shouldn't defend killing people."


...


Well, his point is valid on a day-to-day basis but it doesn't in any way impact the validity of my arguments in this academic/discussion environment. Also, ad hominem means you lose the argument. :/

I can't really pin anything else down.

 

[timethyfx]

"Oh, but [homosexuality] is unnatural and unnatural things are bad! You tweet from your micro-computer that you carry around in your clothes while sailing at 30,000 feet traveling at 500 miles an hour in an aeroplane. Homosexuality is found in over 1,500 different species on this planet. Homophobia, now that's unnatural."

-NerdCubed

I don't think that any argument against homosexuality has ever made me think, "Hmm, yes, that is very logical and I think I will reconsider my views on that topic.".

Prepare to be amazed with a logical argument against gay marriage, not so much homosexuality itself, but close...

http://qntm.org/gay

The gist of it is, some poor soul has to rewrite the entire back end system for how the 'marriage database' would work. - Depending how it was initially setup of course.

It would require some basic knowledge of how SQL works to 'get' it and it is more about explaining SQL concepts using marriage as the example database then an actual 'argument'. It also goes way beyond gay marriage, but is the best I know of.

Now my post count is rising far too rapidly... back to lurking before it his double digits.

 

[Strazdas]

"... but the book was way better." It drives me crazy. Movies are their own thing. Books are their own thing. If a movie sucks, the book can't make it better and vice versa.

yes, they are seperate, this does not mean one cannot be better than the other. if the guy enjoyed the book more, let him.

The problem is, most of the people I know that say it aren't even into all that religious/spiritual stuff so what higher power are they basing this insane notion on?

laws of physics. everything does happen for a reason, its just often the reason is very simply explained without any deity. we dont actually have free will. our combination of electrons defines our personality. and if you think you can "change it" your wrong, your combination accounts for your ability to think that, it already decided.
and this changes nothing. the world doesnt collapse. we still remain who we were a minute ago. its just that claiming about free will is ludicrous when you examine it. and yes we can still prevent bad people form doing bad and all that, but that is all caused by many many things, its not some chaotic random occurrence. its just that the cause determinants are there in the millions and therefore effectively processing it all is pretty much impossible for our intelligence.

and im sure someone is going to quote me as the worst argument, thank you.

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

People who argue for prayer in schools in the U.S.

These are usually very right wing, very christian, very fundamentalist sorts. They don't think it through though.

Trouble is, these same people would probably also be the *most* disturbed by finding out that islamic and hindu and all sorts of other prayers would then also be allowed in their schools. What would they think of their kid coming home and telling them about how they want to pray to mecca like their cool new friends in school do. hehe. Or they want to be a witch like the cool girl sarah and prance around naked in the forest. They somehow seem to think that the right, if they won their argument, would only apply to their religion. The way it is now probably helps them more than anything in regards to their kids, it keeps them isolated from competing religions that use all the same tricks to recruit people that their religion does.

I'm an atheist and it almost makes me want to support prayer in schools, just to see the fun ensue. I wonder what scientologists do? The only disturbing thing to me would be the time it takes away from education. But we already have a lot of that w/sports obsessions and straight up busy work.

So anyways, to bring it around to the main point, is that the very people arguing for prayer in schools would probably be the most offended by it were it actually implemented.

Same goes for me. What I especially hate about this argument is it goes right in the face of separation of Church and State. The Church (or religious advocates in general) should have absolutely no say in what gets taught in a STATE funded school!