I always thought of sarcasm as a very good method of argumentation when the argumentation ground of the debate was rather lacking in the opponent party, especially when the original argument of said party consists in the contradiction:
- Robespierre was a murderer - Robespierre amuses me.
Without any evidence or explanation but murderers being obviously funny, har har har.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-28 04:57 am (UTC)- Robespierre was a murderer
- Robespierre amuses me.
Without any evidence or explanation but murderers being obviously funny, har har har.