Ask Lemmy

If the argument is fair and both parties are open then I think I could win an argument that exercise is crucial for a long and healthy life.

Nothing, conclusively, since I am already at a disadvantage because my brain processing speed can be low at times for debates and is riddled with over thinking about how to reply, but I sure as hell could try winning an argument on why cartoons are better than live action. Or why my absolute favorite webcomic Peter & Company is something people should give a try.

I challenge anyone to debate me about deez nutz

My problem with this is if I zoom in to them it sets the colour

That's zoomed in on the sock and you can't say that's not green

That hitting your children is NOT a good discipline technique.

Indiana Jones could have just stayed home and Raiders Of The Lost Ark would have ended the exact same way but without him dragging that one lady through hell.

Nothing

Magenta is a mass delusion. It has no wavelength, it exists only because of the boundaries in our perception.

We aren't able to see the world as it is, and yet hubris is so baked into the very essence of our being that our brains invent something to deny it. That is majenta. It is an egregore of vision, something we have dreamed into being and subsequently found ourselves made hostage to. It is a stalwart guardian protecting our feeble minds from the unfiltered reality of the world.

If humanity has a god, then that god is Majenta.

And the printers want to take it from us!!

This is Lemmy. I'll give you one guess... and it ain't beans.

Honestly nothing. The more I read and listen about any topic that can be debated the more unsure I am of my stance. I'm pretty sure that billionaires simply shouldn't be allowed to hoard so much money, but I'd probably fold under a multi-layered, informed rebuttal - it's more a gut feeling that i'd likely fail to articulate.

Nothing. These days? Not because I don't know things, but because a lot of people refuse to accept new information, even when it comes from reputable peer-reviewed sources and there's not much arguing with that.

I can argue the uselessness of most American gun laws. I should note, a great many of the arguments rely on the fact of the 2nd Amendment and our court's historical interpretation of it.

Almost every law I see proposed either runs afoul of the 2nd, is useless, and worse, many are counterproductive.

This parrot you sold me is dead.

What am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts, or what am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts AND have the other person understand and change their view/opinion on? Two different scenarios

What do you win? No seriously.

Winning means you shut down the other person and makes him feel stupid for being wrong? Then you havent won anything. You just lost.

The entire school system is explicitly training people to be afraid of being wrong.

You only learn something when you are wrong. It should be celebrated to be wrong. But in our culture, we have made it into a ego thing. That being right means you are better, smarter, more educated. Such bullshit.