Gift Returning

Firstly, he believes my Reductio ad absurdum argument is "Used as a humorous euphemism. " So, I'd like to analyze his paragraph proving why. The Reasoning Behind the Titling: ". .. a humorous euphemism. "Starting with the concrete before we get to the abstract, here is a statement, ipsissimis verbis, from Con. "Calling an explosive device a gift is a rhetorical device. It is ironic. " For those who happen to be a bit less versed in what my opponent is saying, a rhetorical device, if my High School English lessons don't fail me, is something meant to persuade people, which, observant readers may speculate, is what this website is meant for. Con implicitly condemns me for doing such a thing. "It is ironic. .. " indeed. Now, the troubling part in his reasoning, of course, comes into play when he states that my Reductio ad absurdum argument is a ". .. euphemism. " If you, the reader, are not acquainted with what this type of argument is, due to whatever reason, it is an argument that takes events to absurd extremes to prove that the case is not universal, and proves that there is indeed a line. Careful readers will note that making something a euphemism would verily be the opposite of making something absurd. However, I'll allow this to be regarded a simple vocabulary slip and assume my opponent meant to say "an absurd extreme. " So, his argument then becomes that it is too extreme and should be completely disregarded. It's not something one would expect. "It is ironic. " Very well. But that's the reason we should disregard it? The point of the argument, as I established in my definition (which you may check in my previous source, if you feel so inclined), is to prove that a case is not universal. I did so successfully. Why should it be disregarded because I was successful! ? "Oh, hey Jim. Did you finish that little invention of yours? ""Yes! It does exactly what I wanted it to! ""Oh, so it's successful? Ugh, but it's too extreme. It might change the world. .. too much! We must discard and disregard its existence altogether, despite the potential benefits. "I fail to see how that's reasonable in any sense, Con. As such, I will move on without any intention on disregarding my sound argument. Agreed? "Yes, yes TheDarkMuffin, very good. "Alright. Continuing on! The "Common Sense" Paradigm"Lets stick with the common sense. "Common sense. My opponent is, currently, imperating us to stick to the notion of what he perceives as ". .. common sense. " Me as an instigator, and you as the audience, can only be fair if we make a hypothetical compliance. So let's do that. Of course, we're only doing a hypothetical compliance for a reason. My opponent can't possibly actually be talking about a current, pragmatic version of Common Sense. After all, that's what we're challenging. He's creating his own rules for what Common Sense is. Otherwise, his statement would make no sense as an argument beyond him simply ordering you to vote him without arguing at all. So, it's only reasonable to assume he meant a hypothetical Common Sense. One that you, as an audience in society, would not have. So, of course, this can only be reviewed objectively and hypothetically. When receiving a gift, "a crappy gift I must admit," my opponent asserts that "it's the thought that counts. " This is similar to our Common Sense! A use of decorum. A rhetorical device. Don't you think it would've been ironic if my opponent had condemned blatantly using such a thing earlier? Anyways, Con then begins to declare several implications of this notion. If "it's the thought that counts," then, according to my opponent, returning a gift is, verbatim, "an insult, whether conscious or not. It is saying 'I know it is the thought that counts, but your thoughts are inadequate'" which is, in fact, an implication I'm sure everyone had already assumed. But, moving further into the implications, the thought is assigned to the gift, yes? Who assigned the thoughts? Another person who is "only human. " They have no more authority than you do as a person. So, once it's been assigned, the immaterial thought is assigned to this material item. .. forever? So, if this object decays, then the thought no longer exists! ?My opponent accepted my semantic that "a gift [is] sentimental symbolism. " So, it may seem that my opponent does believe that thoughts are only meant to be assigned to material objects. However, he then states that the object is merely a "representation. "Hm. Inconsistency. So, to make sense of my opponent's inconsistent argument, I will revise it to mean that we should not return material objects because they represented meaning. Meaning that was assigned by someone who was "only human. "So, being that they have no authority over you, as reciprocity is not expected and the fact that they are just as human as you, this means you also have the ability to assign and re-assign meaning. It is then clear that it is perfectly okay to return the materials presented as a gift, as the meaning can still be kept, which appears to be the main conflict. That conflict being resolved, it's clear that it is acceptable to return gifts. After all, it's only "common sense. "