Good in what sense? A sarcastic endorsement of A that is indistinguishable from an earnest one is a poor argument for ~A.
This is in fact what's happened with Schrodinger's Cat: it was meant as an argument from absurdity against the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it's presented seriously and so people take it in that way.
> A sarcastic endorsement of A that is indistinguishable from an earnest one is a poor argument for ~A.
The purpose of sarcasm is not to make an argument, it's to have fun. The best fun is had when exactly half of the audience does not get the joke (as the other half makes fun of them).
This is in fact what's happened with Schrodinger's Cat: it was meant as an argument from absurdity against the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it's presented seriously and so people take it in that way.