This chapter argues that the main arguments which lead many philosophers to reject substance dualism can be parodied and transformed into arguments against substance dualism’s main competitor, the thesis that we are composite physical objects. The upshot of the chapter is that those considerations commonly thought to undermine substance dualism are indecisive at best, since they can be parodied. The arguments discussed include: parsimony-based arguments; the argument from causal closure/exclusion; the argument from conservation laws; the argument from the correlation between mental states and brain states; arguments to the effect that souls require an implausible cutoff point, in either evolutionary history or in fetal development, before which there is no soul and after which there is a soul; and arguments to the effect that substance dualism leads to an implausible skepticism regarding our ability to reidentify people over time.