Maybe president.
The Feminist Critique [Repudiation] of Logic.
I am not sure if attacking logic as being something that is gendered (male), patriarchal, and a tool of oppression is still fashionable amongst feminists (or significant factions thereof), but it certainly was at one time. Here are some more links on the subject from Google.
I’ve seen certain radfem circles say it, certainly, but I’ve also seen radfem circles say all heterosexual sex is rape so…
No, it’s not exactly a common feminist critique.
Edit: Though it is a legitimate problem that some people horrifically misuse and abuse formal boolean and first-order logic to come to absurd and occasionally bigoted conclusions that few real formally trained logicians would support.
Actually, you are right. I am quite impressed by your demonstration and I am NOT a one-time poster. 
I want both: (1) To win arguments by attacking the whole idea and application of logic and (2) the logic of whom I am arguing with. It seems to me, one of them implies the other one. If you attack the whole idea and application logic, you might be also attacking the logic of the person with whom you are arguing.
It is very difficult to win if you reject the scoring system.
You liken the scoring system to logic. But, is this not false equivalency?
Nope.
An argument based on logical premises cannot be defeated by rejecting the tools of logic. Your (hypothetical) rebuttals would be seen to be absurdities and irrelevancies.
Just as you cannot make a field goal in chess, you cannot “win” an argument by (whatever you think you are proposing to replace logical inferences).
Caveat: This does not mean that you can make a person stop arguing with you by using nonsense, if that is your goal, but you will not persuade your opponent or any observers to support your side.
I know you are but what am I?
You make a beautifully logical argument. I counter with a gun pointed at your head. Who has won?
What you are talking about is not winning-it is walking away from the game and refusing to play.
Oh well, if we’re talking politics now. . .
I have won the original argument, but you have started a new argument.
Untrue. Word order is very important in Modern English because we’ve almost completely discarded the case system (the vestiges are the subject-object distinction in pronouns and a few archaic words like “methinks”) but languages exist or have existed in which the function of a word in a sentence (subject, direct object, indirect object, etc) is indicated by declination, and word order is very loose.
And of course english is not totally ossified. The dog bites the man and the man bites the dog are both perfectly sensible but consist of the same words in a slightly different order. You think so and think you so mean the same thing, albeit the latter at the expense of sounding like Yoda.
LOL. It’s easy to win arguments if you declare the argument over before the other side can respond!
I disagree that “think you so” means anything. It’s too vague.
But the premise is that the presentation of the weapon is the supposed response, and you just don’t bring a gun to a word fight.
Right?
Right!
… right.
RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT!
(Tone of voice matters. Think you so? Think you so.)
Sez who? Where does that rule come from?
Logic is a formal mathematical system that we use because it makes useful predictions about the unfolding of the universe. However, our belief in the utility of logic is experientially grounded. We cannot PROVE that reality always behaves logically. Only that it SEEMS to behave logically under normal conditions.
Logic is like Newtonian mechanics. It’s a formal system that seems to explain everything, but we can’t be certain that it actually does. Perhaps in the future we will encounter situations that violate the rules of logic that will require us to formulate a new formal systems to account for.
When the water starts falling up, I’ll turn the drain spout upside down. In the meantime…