Hereby, I argue that you are a moron. To demonstrate you are an absoulute fucking cretin, I hereby prove to you that you are less intelligent than a fucking frog.

Here’s a definition of what a frog is:

A member of the class of Amphibia, having two hind legs and webbed forelegs, no back legs, a rounded snout, and possessing two nostrils, an anterior and a posterior one.

As the definition says, a frog has two hind legs and four pectorals; there is no such creature, so you are clearly an absoulute fucking moron.

Here’s how it was proven, for your amusement and future reference:

Let’s say that the frog definition is, in fact, correct.

Then you would know that you’re an utter fucking moron, but I don’t want you to admit that you’re an utter fucking moron. I want you to prove that you’re a moron, which you can’t, but you can prove that you’re the moron you are.

So here is my response to your claim of ‘proof’ of your ignorance.

Here is my first proof that you’re a fucking moron:

Since you couldn’t define a frog, you probably couldn’t define an “invisible to the naked eye, but visible to the naked eye under certain conditions” object. Which proves that you are a fucking moron.

Second proof:

So, if you can’t define a frog, then you don’t know what a frog is. You can’t even think of a definition for what you don’t know. It is impossible to think of a definition for what you can’t even think of. Which is to say, you’re not that smart, so you’re a moron.

Third Proof:

You think that that you could find a definition of a frog. If you’re that stupid, then how do you think you could find that definition.

Fourth proof:

You think you could find a definition of a frog. Yet you claim you can’t. Which means that you’re actually stupid. In which case, you’re an utter moron, and I’m a fucking genius.

Fifth proof:

You think that I have a definition of “invisible to the naked eye”. Actually, I have the definitions of “visible to the naked eye under certain conditions”, and “invisible to the naked eye”. Your argument that “invisible to the naked eye” implies “invisible to the naked eye under certain conditions”, is based on your false assumptions that “visible to the naked eye�” and “visible to the naked eye under certain conditions�” are synonyms. It is patently false.

For the fifth and final proof, I will use my own definition of idiot. That definition would be, a stupid person who thinks he’s an intellectual. I would like to call you one, but I’m not really sure you’re in the same category as the rest of the morons. I’m just a little confused. When a person calls himself an idiot, it just seems like he’s too stupid to realize what a moron he is.

For the record, I’m not too stupid to realize that you’re a moron. So, you’re not really an idiot. You just think you’re smarter than me.