The Worst Argument In The World
The article could use some more neutral and left-leaning "Worst argument in the world (TWAITW)" examples.  I'm fairly neutral politically, and the piece sounded left-biased to me.  Note that I'm not stating my opinion here; the author even apologizes for it in the article.<p>Perhaps he is simply at a loss for examples?  We could help.  Here's a neutral one (from the comments):<p>- "George Washington was a <i>traitor</i>!" (should probably be used BEFORE the Martin Luther King argument; in extremely conservative circles, even mentioning Dr. King's name rings the "ding! ding! liberal!" bells)<p>Here are some left-leaning "argumentoids" that you sometimes hear and that have elements of TWAITW:<p>- "But guns <i>kill</i> people!"  I realized shortly after reading the article that this is not only an instance of TWAITW, but shows the logic behind the retort "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".  This might be rephrased as saying "yes, guns kill people, but not in the way that murderers kill people, which is to say, with malicious intent.  That requires a person, so let's concentrate on whether removing guns from the economy will prevent those with malicious intent from obtaining them."<p>- "Evolution is a <i>fact</i>!"  Yes, but maybe not in the "totality of the truth is plain for all to see" perspective.  It is true that PARTS of evolution are plain fact, but the creationist has a point that some of the more fantastic parts of evolution are harder to directly observe in the same way as, say, gravity.<p>- "Reproductive freedom is a <i>choice</i>!"  Perhaps, but you can't just dismiss the argument at that point.  Choice can mean "choosy moms choose Jiff" or it can mean "the difference between life and death".  Saying it is a choice ignores the fact that not all personal "choices" are accepted by society (i.e. it is your choice and you can make one, but sometimes there are consequences).<p>- "Tax breaks for the rich are <i>unfair</i>!" Perhaps, but there are many levels of unfair.  You must argue why tax breaks for the rich are at the same level of unfair as, say, separate water fountains for whites and blacks and not unfair as in "it's unfair that I always have to pull the cookie jar from the top shelf just because I happen to be the tall one."<p>Note that all of these lean more toward "equivocation" than the author's technical definition of TWAITW.  But then, perhaps that's what TWAITW boils down to.<p>Also, I note in all of these that they are all caricature arguments.  They are all cliched.  The arguments in the article have a similar nature.<p>This leads to a disturbing point: it is helpful to have TWAITW as an analytical tool when having a serious debate, but if you are "debating" with a person who shouts soundbites like these in your face, do you really think they are going to understand or care if you try to explain to them that they are using TWAITW?  Seems like more preaching to the choir, unfortunately.