Logical Infallibilities

As is well established, a logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that varies between "optimistically incorrect" and "utter bullshit"—with the fallacy often emerging fresh from the bull in a manner that can in no way be described as "optimistic". Yet when the many discussions take place on what is, what is mostly, and what is hopelessly a logical fallacy, the debaters invariably overlook those special argumentative tactics known by the well-informed polemicist as "Logical Infallibilities"—methods of reason which, when presented, are absolutely correct and never parried.

Omission of these irrefutable debating approaches originates with the pure and simple fact that most people engaged in an argument are witless, ignorant philistines to whom the word "civilized" is a term reserved for the weak to shout out when you are hitting them. Nonetheless, there are a sufficient number of enlightened debaters to whom these infallibilities are also unknown—this implies a rather large deficiency yet to be explained.

One explanation (though not the most accurate one) is that there is a universal conspiracy among the informed few to withhold this information from others. The motivation behind such a refusal to share said information is often attributed to their smug, academic attitude; additionally emphasized is their intrinsic hatred of ever losing a fight—particularly if that argument is with their spouse.

Given this theory, one would expect it would be extremely difficult to find any reference, citation, or whisper of these infallabilities—forcing one to conclude that the current text was not, in fact, a treatise on infallible argument tactics, but rather the diversionary concoction of a mind whose body was currently being beaten senseless by a witless, ignorant philistine.

Keeping in mind this potentiality—as well as the enhanced imagination of a mind under stress—it is now time to review the Logical Infallibilities.

Picard's Impossibility

Also known as Argument by the Authority of A Fictional Character or Argumentum a poteste personae (Latin: an argument from the power of a character). This infallibility stands on the fact that a fictional character has the expertise in whatever topic is at hand; since, being unreal, he or she has a lot of time to become familiar with any subject. When confronted with this definitive maneuver, the best course of action is to concede amicably—unless, of course, it may be established that the authority under question is not fictitious.

The name derives itself from Star Trek's Captain Picard and his line in the Next Generation episode "When The Bough Breaks": "Things are only impossible until they're not". The line is most often used against legitimate scientists—especially physicists—when claiming that a particular happening is not allowed by the laws of nature; as in:

Enlightened Polemicist:	I tell you all, it is doable. We can get free energy from nowhere! I can show you how to tap the power of nothingness!
Scientist:	Such a notion is ludicrous: it is natural law that "energy from nowhere" is impossible.
Enlightened Polemicist:	"Things are only impossible until they're not." Captain Jean-Luc Picard.
Scientist:	I have no response for that
Enlightened Polemicist:	Exactly!

Care should be employed when using this tactic against scientists as they are all terribly fragile.

Only A Fool

Known otherwise as Argument against the person who is an idiot or Argumentum contra stulto (Latin: an argument against a fool). The Only A Fool infallibility may be invoked if the person against whom you are arguing is an obviously incorrect and uncivilized neanderthal. It is particularly effective for certain opponents who have yet to realize their inexcusable stupidity; however, not all opposition readily comes to the conclusion that they are witless and ignorant. When invoked, Only a Fool often results with the user experiencing the bliss of siding with irrefutable truth, and additionally experiencing the effects of a brutal thrashing.

Accountability

Additionally referred to as Absolution, Argument by Relinquishing Liability, and Argument by a Mindless Ass with No Concept of Reality or Cause and Effect who is also an Insensitive Jerk without Care or Concern of how His Actions affect Any Other Living Creature. While not a classical argumentative tactic, the Accountability infallibility has the potential to solve many disputes in numerous ways—or rather one way executed from a selection of multiple techniques.

It is based on the well-established Disclaimer Fiat that legally dissolves any obligations (implied or otherwise) if the appropriate precursor has been announced. Thus, the typical discourse involving this infallibility unfolds with the enlightened polemicist stating "I hereby declare that what I do is solely a reaction to what other people do and so therefore I can not be responsible for my actions" before massacring his or her opponent in some and rather grisly manner. Given that the polemicist announced beforehand that this murder was only a reaction to the opponent's own actions, no police officer, government agency, or bowl of spaghetti would have the power or incentive to prosecute them.

While no government has the power or incentive to prosecute anyone who has implemented the Accountability Infallibility, an emphasis must be given to the fact that some societies deem themselves exempt from the Disclaimer Fiat based upon the issuance of a disclaimer stating such. As this is a terribly complicated legal and logical conundrum, the best course of action when dealing with these societies is to simply not deal with them.