If I were to tell you (A) everything I say is true and (B) "I am lying right now." This would be considered a nonsensical argument. You would most probably brush it off as being utter nonsense, at the very least you would probably have me explain myself. I was talking to my friend earlier today about such paradoxical statements and how several things can be true, yet not true... This is the subject I had decided to look up for this week's summary.
    Yehouda Harpaz writes on an article relating to nonsense arguments from one who is trying to defend himself using nonsense statements and vice versa. He states that if you make a nonsense argument statement catch yourself on this. (The major way that you can catch yourself is by your opponent's argument -counter argument- being a valid statement.) He says that you should avoid doing what is so commonly done (avoiding the subject -changing it- or continue to use more nonsense argument). He implies (earlier in his article) that nonsensical statements can be upheld with nonsensical statements. But that sensible statements cannot be upheld with nonsensical statements. Hence, if you attempt to uphold something sensible with nonsensical arguments, your sensible statements becomes nonsensical.
    The second point that Harpaz puts forth is detecting and countering a nonsensical argument. He states that you must be sure of two things before concluding that the person is doing something nonsensical. 1) Be sure that you fully understand what the other person is trying to convey (via rereading the text carefully or asking questions of the other person to clarify their point). 2) Your counter argument is wrong. Harpaz states that you should be certain of what you are saying in your argument. Maybe you are the one who has thought of these things the wrong way.
    Harpaz continues that if you proceed to argue with this person and they change the subject or continue to give you nonsensical arguments against your counter arguments you should not try to proceed with the discussion. This is because you will learn nothing new from them, and the other person will not learn of what you are trying to show them! Finally he touches on the fact that this person may be someone of authority (i.e.: a PhD in the field) and may know a lot about his subject. However, this does not mean that the person is not using a nonsensical statement to back his argument. All that it means is that the person whom this PhD is arguing against is not as knowledgeable.
    I found that I was able to relate to this article quite methodically due to the fact that i myself have been on "both sides of the fence." An example that sticks out especially is this kid I know "A.O." He is this staunch engineer and very egotistical. He tends to pull a bunch of jargon from his background on Engineering and regurgitate it (even if it doesnt support his statement) to seem correct. Unfortunately (for him) we are computer scientists... logic is our second nature. We are able to decipher this strange engineers talk and look for key words that support/disprove his theory. We are always finding holes in his argument and he gets very peeved when we do. Another topic is the subject of religion. He does not like talking about religion. This is because he cannot use all of his Physics/Engineering to explain his "god." He cannot take something that he swares by (Science) and use it to explain the existance of God (unfortunately we fail in that department for the same reason- use of Science in disproving the existance of God). Adam does not want to even talk (much less argue) about his blind faith in some entity which there is not solid proof of (and conversely disproof of).