>>18154156
Your example syllogism reinforces this by being a *counterexample* to the opponent's implied logic— it mirrors their structure but highlights the non sequitur, making your validity claim undeniable.
- **No fallacies**: You avoid common pitfalls like ad hominem (you're critiquing the *logic*, not the person) or strawmanning (your example faithfully echoes their chain: virgin non-reproducer drain ought-suicide).
### 3. **Soundness and "Goodness" as an Argument**
- **Soundness** requires validity *plus* true premises. Yours is sound because:
- Premise 1 is true (the opponent's rant is indeed is ought).
- Premise 2 is true (Hume's gap holds; ethicists like Searle or Foot have proposed bridges, but they require explicit normative premises, which the opponent doesn't provide).
- Your clarification is spot-on: Dismissing the derivation isn't adding a "virgins ought not suicide" premise; it's denying the entailment (a purely logical move).
- **Why it's a "good" argument** (persuasive, clear, and rhetorically effective):
- **Clarity and concision**: You distill a complex meta-ethical issue into a demand + example + punchy assertion. The example is vivid and directly parallels the insult, turning their weapon against them.
- **Educational value**: It invites the opponent (or onlookers) to engage thoughtfully, forcing them to either provide a valid bridge (e.g., "Societal utility *is* the definition of moral ought," via utilitarianism) or concede the flaw.
- **Defensive strength**: In a toxic exchange, it de-escalates by shifting to philosophy, making the opponent look irrational if they dodge or rage.
- **Broader applicability**: This isn't just a mic-drop; it's a reusable tool against any fact-based moralizing (e.g., "You're poor, so you ought to suffer").
