Two friends of mine got into a long argument on whether or not “orange” ryhmes with “porridge”. It started out as friendly joking but ended up with some pretty nasty attacks on each other’s level of education, hygiene and parentage.
I recently sat in an airport gate waiting for my plane, and the woman next to me had a looooong fight on her cellphone with some guy who had not been to see her while she was in town. At least 30 minutes of, “Well, you had the chance to see me on Friday night, but you weren’t there, so you must not have wanted to see me.” That was basically her entire argument, repeated ad nauseum for at least 30 minutes. Why the guy didn’t hang up after 5 is a mystery. (To pre-empt the unimaginative question: no, she was not hot.)
I seem to recall something about an airplane and a treadmill…
My wife and I used to get into epic arguments over directions -
We would both study the same lake map - often at the same time - determine where we wanted to go for a day of fishing.
Me - “When we launch - we head to the right , turn left at the fork and then the spot we’re looking for should be right in that area”
Her - “No - when we launch, we head to the left, turn right at the fork and then the spot will be there”
we both look at the map to confirm we’re looking at the same spot -
Me - “the ramp is here - we head to the right - turn left - there’s the spot”
Her - “no - you take a left - turn rigth - theres the spot”
Turns out - that if you are both studying the same map - you should be looking at it from the same side of the table - not from opposite sides (looking at each other and the map).
Fun times - thank god for GPS. (and I’m an athiest).
One of you needs to have your orienteering credentials revoked. Which way you turn your boat to get to a location should not change with what side of the map you are looking at things from.
It took me awhile - she’s finally been accredited. To her defense, she was also assuming the ramp was on her side of the map.
My Mom told my Brother I said something; it was a horrifically twisted and malicious version of what I actually said. My brother stopped speaking to me for about six months. When he finally deigned to take my call I asked him what happened and he told me the problem. I told him what I had actually said, and Mom’s dysfunctional additions became immediately clear to him. We reconciled, and I girded myself for the inevitable sobbing call from my Mother.
About once per year for the last 40 years. My Mother never stops and my Brother never learns. :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
Perpetual motion. I explained why it doesn’t exist. Their response? (There were two of them)
“Nuh-huh!”
My husband is an intelligent adult in his 40s and he still has fantasies about inventing a perpetual motion machine. I don’t argue about it with him. I just nod my head and use “that would be cool” often.
As for the stupidest arguments, my children are on day four of a four day weekend. I could make a very long list of stupid arguments starting with my youngest daughter and her friend spending 10 minutes arguing over who got to pour the water into the tea cups for their tea party. Pour your own water in your own cup and take turns apparently weren’t viable options. These girls are both old enough to know better.
A disagreement between co-workers at the bank over whether pigs have veins or not. I was firmly on the side of them having veins, and in fact arteries as well. My co-workers argued that pigs aren’t affected by snakebite, so they (the pigs) must not have veins. I pulled a couple of vein segments from my pulled pork sandwich and waved them around, but they said those weren’t veins (they were).
I ended up calling the North Carolina Pork Producers and asking them. I got my answer, but it didn’t resolve the argument because pigs ain’t afraid of snakes.
As an avid comic book fan, these types of debates were a dime per two-dozen.
(And for the record, the Hulk would win. Just sayin’.)
Oh, and how could I forget the multiple hours long debate, well into the early morning, with regard to whether “nothing could exist”. Most semantically-charged high-school debate, ever.
One of my friends had the house where everyone would hang out, basically because he had a nice basement bedroom and we could smoke down there. Years later we ended up renting a house together. One day hanging out I say “hey you know that tan recliner you had at your mums? If its just sitting down there in the basement we should bring it here”
“what? There wasnt a chair in my room, nor a recliner”
(chair and recliner were used interchangably after this point)
An hour of arguing. “It was MY room, i remember the furniture”. “I know it was your room, but obviously your an idiot whos judgement cant be trusted if you dont remember what was in there”. I even tried to drop it, but any amount of silence would be met by “I didnt have a chair down there”. I tried reason, often 4 of us hung out down there, the couch only sat 3 but do you remember anyone ever complaining about sitting on the floor? No because there was a comfy chair. It meant nothing, he was convinced there was no chair. I went into detail about the color, where the recliny lever thing was, the gold tacks in the armrests, the tan faux leather…he denies any if it existed. There was the chair, a small table, a couch, a dresser and his waterbed. Its not like there was alot of stuff in his room.
Finally I call his mother. She remembers the chair, it was uncle whatshisnames originally and when we moved away she then gave it to blahblah. He takes the phone from me and starts arguing with her about the existance of this chair. He hangs up and just folds his arms and says “there was no chair”.
That was over 20 years ago…about a year or 2 he slipped in a “and I never had any chair” into a lull in the conversation. I glared at him a moment, then started talking about something else. Stubborn bastard.
Ergh, now I’m thinking about the modal ontological argument for the existence of God. It goes something like this (and yes, I’m sure I’m butchering it):
-God is defined as that which is necessary for a universe to exist.
-We can imagine something which is necessary for a universe to exist.
-In modal logic, there are infinite universes, and if something is possible, that means it exists in at least one of these possible universes.
-It’s possible for something to exist that is necessary for a universe to exist.
-God therefore exists in one of the possible universes.
-That means there exists something that’s necessary for a universe to exist.
-Therefore, any universe that exists must have that thing in it, since that thing is necessary for a universe’s existence.
-Therefore God.
Oh, the good times we used to have with that particular bit of sophistry…
Some of the people in my dorm at University argued for an entire weekend about whether an Imperial Star Destroyer could win in a fight with a Galaxy-class Starship.
And, therefore, I wasn’t surprised to discover more than one thread here and the estimable SDMB that discusses this very matter.
And much as respect the Ever-Lovin Ben Grimm, Hulk wins.
ETA: Since this was circa 1982, I believe the Constitution-Class Starship was the one in debate.
I My husband and I once got into a long involved debate, (with others, we were on the same side) it involved phone calls to the USA (from Canada) emails, posts, Facebook messages, forums etc that basically hinged on the American vs the rest of the English speaking world’s use of the term “table” as in “to table a motion”.
Honestly, if a stupid Facebook game could create this amount of conflict how the heck to they manage international diplomacy. At the time I was tempted to call up the UN and ask if they have a working definition of “table” that everyone agreed on, I wondered if it would end wars.
I used to get into weird arguments with a girlfriend in college. Amoung other things, she vehemently defended her assertion that Mt. Everest was in America. When I was able to show she was wrong she would get mad at me doing it.
The “water goes down a plughole differently south of the equator” argument.
On the “it does” side: One guy and a documentary he once saw.
On the “it doesn’t” side: Me with cites from scientific studies, a guy who knew the documentary and the fact that it was later debunked, and a guy who had lived both sides of the equator.
We knew that he was wrong, could explain why he was wrong, and could explain why he thought that he was right, but that still wasn’t enough.
The funniest part, there was a Star Wars cross-section book that listed all the stats for the Star Destroyer, which would overwhelm probably all of Starfleet. It seemed to settle things, as it was published officially by Star Wars.
The Trekkies’ counter? “That book was written BY one of the Enterprise vs Star Destroyer debaters, and that person overpowered the Star Destroyer to win the argument.” :dubious:
Ah. . . but if God exists -in- the universe, then the universe had to pre-exist God. . .
:: skedaddles ::
Then-fiancé: Just after moving in together, on which bread knife was better and worth keeping, and me then getting angrier when she suggested we keep both as a settlement for the time being. But then my shrink told me it wasn’t really about the knives we were arguing about, it was just a trigger, or a symbol, or something. Stupid shrinks.
Wife: arguing about what hurtful things we had said to each other, when both of us had forgotten, which started the fight in which this sub-fight was initiated. We get extra credit for that one.
Kid with kid: I can’t believe I’m the only one: Who would win, Superman or Batman?
Kid with kid: Ditto. Who is better, the Monkees or the Beatles?
Kid with brother: The car got pulled over more than once for this one: Who would win in a fight with each other, a tiger or a lion?
Kid: Ditto. What’s the difference between a hotel and a motel?