Careful here
you're about 3 posts away from becoming the most laughed at bellend on QoTW, that's not a place you want to be.

Quit now, admit you might be wrong and if you play it right you might even be able to colour it as you giving the baby his bottle, with a bit of effort.
( WormuIus, Thu 19 May 2011, 8:55, 1 reply)

I think the standard exit strategy here is "Haha! Got you! I was joking all along! I love to troll the trolls lololol!"

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 8:58, closed)

It was a strange argument
its like watching a bad moot, where you know there are good arguments to be made but the advocate fails to actually explain what it is they are saying and just sort of flaps around awkwardly.

I don't know the first thing about French, but I reckon I could have won that argument against Blaireau by simply doing the following:

1. Stating my hypothesis in a sentence.
2. Stating the 2/3 points I was going to make in support of my hypothsis
3. Stating how the points support my hypothesis
4. Restate the hypothesis with the support in a sentence.

I don't think it was their lack of knowledge or even lack of a point (I'm prepared to accept that one form or the other is 'correct') that lost them that argument in spectacular style but I think it was rather a failure to adequately communicate their argument.

This is why we shouldn't cut legal-aid.
( WormuIus, Thu 19 May 2011, 9:15, closed)

I think we should imprison people who are incapable of structuring an argument.
Randomly pluck people off the street, drag them in front of a mindlessly pedantic court and accuse them of something heinous. If they can't calmly explain why they're innocent GO STRAIGHT TO GAOL DO NOT PASS GO

Hang on ... Kafka already wrote that one, didn't he?
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 9:18, closed)