I feel like having fun: imagine a conversation with such a person:
Madg opines: "No man will ever be President of the United States."
"That's silly. Happens all the time."
"Ha! That's ridiculous! Educated people know it's not true. Name one!"
"George Washington."
"Oh, so 1 example? That's all you have? You extrapolate your data based on one data-point? Don't you think your conclusion is a bit far-fetched? You'd never make it as a scientist! Go on, name another (as if you can)! "
"John Adams."
"Two? That's it? This is silly! There's 3 billion men on the planet, and all you can come up with is 2 who have been President of the United States!"
"Thomas Jefferson."
"Look, these 3 are not men as recognized in the current scientific literature. You're making my case for me. I think people watching this debate realize that you're losing. Clearly, no man has ever been President of the United States."
"James Madison."
"Look, the post-structuralist antinomian view of societal influences may persuade, in a teleological sense, that post-colonial praxis can be realized in a statis environment. But the point you're trying to make was proven to be outmoded by Schottscrer at the Vienna Conference in 1953! No one but a Garibaldian holds those views now! In fact, the dominant hegemony of a patriarchal construct specifically argues against the post-modern denominalist superstructure that you're trying to erect. I think you should admit defeat."