Not sure how well that would match the definition of trolling, but the template usually is:

Side A: Says something that people call correct. Side B: Says something that people call absurd, but then realise how that correlates to what Side A previously said. This make people realise the absurdity of what Side A said.

This template has quite a few similarities to little witty fable-like stories that were available in children's books, which ended up helping children develop some level of critical thinking while also being entertaining.

Continue reading for an example story that might not be fun to read, because I am not a very good writer...

The king was once walking around his kingdom's streets when he overheard a drunk guy boasting off how he can stay neck-deep in lake water the whole night in winter. The next day, the guy was summoned to court and offered treasure on the condition that he would do the same. The guy went to the said lake and stayed there the whole night and came back the next day to receive his reward.

When the king asked, how he managed the feat, the guy said that he looked at the burning lamps in the temple on the other side of the lake and got heat from it all night. The king then went on saying that the guy had cheated and proceeded to not give the treasure.

A few days later, the court jester invited the king to dinner at his house. When the king arrived, the jester said that the food was not ready yet and would take some while.
After a few hours of waiting the king went into the kitchen to find the jester. The jester had hung the pot off of a high tree branch in the backyard and had a bonfire under the tree.

Looking at the vertical distance between the pot and the fire, the king had the obvious response of telling the jester how it would be impossible to cook the food with that method, to which the jester responded by saying that it should be possible considering how the guy in the winter lake managed to get heat from a temple 100s of metres away.