The problem with arguing on the Internet is...

Let me start over. There is obviously more than one problem with arguing on the Internet.

One of the problems with arguing on the Internet is…

Wait, no. Really, Internet arguments are intrinsically a problem, and pointing out "a problem" with them is like trying to point out one of the unpleasant implications of racial cleansing. Let's try that again.

A specific aspect of Internet arguments that does not in any way mitigate their terribleness is this: They can't be won.

All good things come to an end. Internet arguments never come to an end. You don't need me to finish the syllogism. In the absence of an end condition, there's only whoever has the last word. So all online arguments come down to the two people who just will not shut up. They're like contestants in a Fifties-era dance marathon, each bodily dragging their own limp argument around the dance floor in hopes that the other will collapse first.

And much like Fifties-era dance marathons led directly to the Bay of Pigs crisis and the invention of non-dairy creamer, the endless arguments of the Internet can only lead to horror and pain.

The only solution is to come up with a way to declare a winner or a loser, and agree as a society that when that point is reached, the argument is over, the Zambonis come out on the ice, and the contenders can and should hit the showers. Figuratively, of course. People who argue endlessly on the Internet are unlikely to literally take a shower.

I have some proposed end conditions. But before I get started, let me say this: I know a lot of you out there are shouting "Godwin!" Godwin's Law merely states that eventually, any argument will involve a comparison to Nazis in general or Hitler specifically. Some people have misinterpreted it to mean that once Nazis are brought up, the argument is over. While I applaud the principle, in practice it makes it very difficult to discuss European history; the films of Charles Chaplin; or who, among those who surf, must die.

Having said that, here are my proposed rules:

* If you say something along the lines of "the moderators might ban me for saying this, but…" then you lost.

Anyone who says "well, ban me if you want to, but…" is actually saying "in the name of a loving God, please ban me because I am losing this argument so badly that my only hope of escaping it with a shred of dignity is if I can make myself out to be some sort of martyr to free speech." You asked for it, you got it, Troll-ota.

* If you claim to have supporting evidence available online, but instead of linking to it you say "Look it up yourself," you lose.

Similarly to the banning thing, "look it up yourself" clearly means "please please please don't look it up yourself." It's an admission of failure.

* If you invoke Occam's Razor, or "the burden of proof," you lose.

If you think Occam's Razor is a way to prove something is true, you don't understand Occam's Razor. Occam merely provided a way of choosing among hypotheses to test, not a way of avoiding testing them. And in an online argument, the burden of proof is upon whomever most wants to convince the other guy, end of story.

* If you invoke the name of a logical fallacy without explaining its relevance, you lose.

Logical fallacies are not Harry Potter spells. You don't just get to shout them out and wiggle your wand to make magic happen. Plus, there's a logical meta-fallacy: Just because someone's making an error in reasoning doesn't mean they're wrong.

* If you claim to be winning, you lose.

This should be self-evident: If you're so desperate that you have to tell someone you're winning, you're obviously not.

* If you make a reference to Honey Boo Boo, you lose.

There's no rhetorical basis for this, I'm just freaking tired of hearing about Honey Boo-Boo.

[Born naked, helpless and unable to provide for himself, Lore Sjöberg overcame these handicaps to become a logician, a magician, and a patrician.]