If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.
It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.
Godwin's law makes no judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing that Godwin's law exists.
How is that relevant?
Because you are implying that Godwin's law makes what he says worth not replying to; this is blatantly untrue. You are apparently saying that his point is moot because it is predicted by Godwin's law. Since when does a predictable reply mean you do not have to respond to it?
I don't think that Godwin predicted that dazzleman would compare feminists to Nazis.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (i.e. certainty)."
He did, more or less.
But the point is, what does Godwin's Law have to do with his comment, and how does it make it any less valid?
EDIT: I am, by the way, not arguing that it is valid. I am just arguing that Godwin's Law is irrelevant to its validity.
