Maybe someone can do a spoof of that Apple "there's an app for that" commercial replacing "argument" for "app." Here are two possibilities.
First, Newt Gingrich–the stupid man's idea of what a smart person sounds like–argues that Child Labor Laws ought to be repealed. Seriously, this was practically what I had assigned to my Phil 210 course this year as a troll assignment: they had to argue that children ought to work–or ought not to be prohibited (with child labor laws, etc.) from working–in coal mines. His argument:
This is something that no liberal wants to deal with," Gingrich said. "Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy. It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.
"You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine. You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I've tried for years to have a very simple model," he said. "Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising."
Interesting choice of words. The second is a variation on the argument that pizza is a vegetable. Pepper spray is "a food product, essentially", one squirt and you're South of the Border. Where would one find this? Why Fox News of course. Video here.
O'Reilly: "First of all, pepper spray, that just burns your eyes, right?"
Kelly: "Right, I mean it's like a derivative of actual pepper. It's a food product, essentially. But a lot of experts are looking at that and saying is that the real deal or has it been diluted because–"
O'Reilly: "They should have more of a reaction than that."
Kelly: "That's really besides the point, it was obviously something that was abrasive and intrusive. Several went to the hospital."
Tastes like burning (someone–can't remember where–beat me to that one).
Anyway, here's one more from the archives. Do you do something that contradicts your stated principles? Well, Ayn Rand has an argument for that. It's not wrong for you, because you object to it. Do you disagree with all forms of public welfare but collect it? It's not wrong if and only if you think such things are wrong.
The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.
And so on. Much more in our archives.