One of my favourite pastimes is dissecting shitty arguments and pointing out just what's so shitty about them. Here's a short one regarding a xenophobic ingrate whining that our China-born athletes do not deserve their monetary rewards.

"It would be quite fine if all we gave her were some rounds of applause.

It is not however fine that $250,000 of Singapore Pools money (funded by the poor, innumerate aunties and uncles who buy 4-D and Toto every week) is being taken from charities (yes that's what Singapore Pools funds, other than these athletes) to give to this woman"

It is arguments like that that makes people want to flip tables and fling alpacas about. It also compels one to believe some people simply should not be entitled to an opinion at all.

"funded by the poor, innumerate aunties and uncles who buy 4-D and Toto every week"

... just what the fuck is this ludicrousness?

Fallacy: Hasty generalisation.
What makes you think anyone who does not fit into your mould of 'poor' (which he, if you have noticed, has very sweepingly classified as the heartlanders) don't buy 4D/Toto?

"...is being taken from charities"

Fallacy: False dichotomy
Assumes that if the money does not go to funding athletes, it will go to charities. Fails to acknowledge the very likely possibility that the money will end up being used in other ways. And lets be frank here, NO ONE buys 4D/Toto to donate to charities. Their sole concern is to make themselves rich, NOT to ease the plight of the less fortunate.

There, I'm done. I might do another if I get bored enough.