What are you confident you could win an argument about?
What are you confident you could win an argument about?
Comments
127-
-
Who the bestest boy/girl is.
To a dog, of course.
-
What I’ve got in my pocket.
-
That's not fair! It's against the rules!
-
Is it... MY PRECIOUS?!?
-
Your hand.
-
-
That this dress is white and gold. I mean, just look at it. It's self-evident.
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/88909fd1-7021-4c1e-84a7-d5272f4b6541.jpeg
:-)
-
I still don't see it.
-
I spent so long trying to make myself see blue-and-black. Kind of resigned that I can't do it.
I've managed to game other optical illusions by covering bits of them up, to break the effect, and then slowly shift the amount covered. Cover one eye. Focus on one part of the image.
I can make the Necker cube be in either orientation.
I've seen The Spinning Dancer run in both directions.
But The Dress remains determinedly white-and-gold.
-
-
I actually was able to avoid this hype and never see 1 picture until now!
Its gold.
-
I've only seen blue and black
-
-
-
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.
-
Nah man, you're wrong. Just saying. /s
-
No I'm not!
(I was considering just posting the Monty Python argument scratch instead)
-
-
-
Probably nothing.
Winning an argument would mean your opponent has enough sense to admit they were wrong, and I just don't hold 99% of the people I come across to that standard anymore.
-
I got 2:
That there does not exist an argument one could reliably win on account of there always being someone people stupid enough to insist they are right even when confronted with absolute proof and perfect knowledge.
—————-
Any argument as long as i am willing to stop caring about facts.
-
Why privacy is important
-
Do mean, "what controversial topic would I be correct about", or do you mean, "what can i make the other person shut up about"? Because those are different skills, and it's the reason why politicians win over the public and scientists get derided.
-
I had intended the former, so I'm regretting my choice of verbiage now. Oops.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
Assuming people are actually able and willing to recognize when they start hiding in circular reasoning (or other logical fallacies but by experience, begging the question is most common):
Argument about matter being the foundation of reality. It's not. And I'd start by questioning your understanding of the word "matter".
-
Qualia is the only fundamental thing
-
You know, I feel like I see a surprising amount of people on Lemmy who have stepped out of the basic materialistic view. It's encouraging but also a bit bizarre. There seems to be a weird subsection of people who are able enough computer nerds to not be scared by the interface here, but have actually looked into some pretty deep philosophical stuff (though some definitely have just done enough psychedelics). I include myself in the weird subsection of course but I really didn't expect to see as many others here as I have.
-
-
Matter has a specific meaning in physics but for this purpose I'd define matter as anything that exists in the world and behaves according to the rules of physics.
We can do science to determine how matter behaves and we can determine it keeps behaving that way whether any conscious being is interacting with it. That's why I think matter is more of a foundation of reality than experience. Experience can come and go but matter keeps doing its thing.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
-
-
The fact that police can lie to your face in order to trick you into saying something they can label as “incriminating” leads to society having no trust for the police.
-
I have opinions but I'm not confident to argue about them.
-
"You prefer strawberry ice cream to all of chocolate, mint chip, and French vanilla."
-
No, I don't! But you do seem very sure of yourself. Maybe you're right, fuck my strawberry allergy, bring on the strawberry ice cream!
-
-
Came here to say something similar. And also to point out that this opinion is a perfectly sound argument in and of itself, thus making it somewhat paradoxical in context.
-
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
By the amount of times I had moderators act bratty to me for: proving the Roman Catholic Church had control of our world since 538 AD or earlier.
-
any topic, so long as I don't need to commit to a positive claim. if someone else is willing to construct an argument, I can attack the premises.
-
My argument is simple: 2+2=4.
-
not true for larger or smaller values of 2
-
-
-
Nothing. I've spent my life arguing and several years arguing professionally. There are not many bigger wastes of time. I still do it, just to speak my peace, not because I'm hoping to change a bunch of minds.
-
This is Lemmy. I'll give you one guess... and it ain't beans.
-
Communism. Furries. Linux. Woke.
-
-
I'm a woman who has slurs about her. Depending on who I'm arguing and what winning means I can't win an argument about whether it's raining as we slowly get drenched.
That said in a constructive discussion I'm really good at convincing people that comprehensive public transit is valuable, that public services are important, and that a general sense of cooperation is invaluable for society.
-
That hitting your children is NOT a good discipline technique.
-
Nothing
-
Noah's ark myth never happened, and the earth was never completely flooded at any point in its history.
People may lie, but the rock record doesn't.
-
Have you seen the heat argument?
In short, the Young Earth Creationist position is that all the plate tectonics and radiological dating issues happened because of the flood. This means the plates would have to have moved very fast, and the resulting friction creates heat. Incredible amounts of heat. Likewise, radioactive decay releases heat, too. To do all the changes necessary to do that in the space of about a year it would generate enough heat to turn the entire planet into a plasma.
This may actually be "checkmate, YEC!", at least in a sense. Not because they'll change their mind about God or anything, but because they prefer to have physical solutions if possible. It's easier to convince other people if you keep reliance on the supernatural to a minimum. But there's just no way around this one. You have to rely on the supernatural to fix it. There's just too much heat, otherwise.
-
That's what I'm eluding to in another reply. The two most common YEC arguments are "hydro plate" and "catastrophic plate techtonics". Both of them have the same heat problem.
While there is technically enough water locked in underground rock to cover the land completely, water has a high heat capacity.
On my last project we were working with gypsum, which is a hydrated Calcium sulfate. Above around 60°C/120°F that water is driven off to produce anhydrite. There are hydrate minerals that require much more heat to dehydrate them.
At 120°F and 100% humidity, human life would be impossible.
-
-
-
That being vegan is an ethical choice compared to not being vegan.
-
Sure, if you don't mind breeding vegetables for your own greedy enjoyment, I guess you can get on a high horse just because you don't also abuse animals.
-
most people don't abuse animals
-
Growing plants to eat kills fewer plants than growing plants to feed to livestock which you then eat. The "plants' rights activist" argument is invalid.
-
-
they're both ethical choices. like in the trolley problem, pulling the lever or not.
-
-
Define winning.
I could win why there is no god but many people can not accept this since it would literally destroy them with this belief, hence reject it as self protection. That's just how humans work.
Bringing me back to the question. What even is 'winning an argument'?
(If you feel the urge to downvote: go ahead but ask yourself - do you feel threatened?)
-
(If you feel the urge to downvote: go ahead but ask yourself - do you feel threatened?)
lol no I just think what you said is wrong and arrogant about being able to win that argument from even a logic perspective. Arguing the absence of lowercase-g god is a Sisyphian task if ever there was one. It reads like a teenager who binged Dawkins videos wrote it.
-
60% of Lemmy users are that teenager but they're 35 and still haven't grown out of it.
So many people here don't even accept historian consensus that Jesus was a real person
-
I don't care how it looks and it would take time etc sure, but I am convinced. I could go on ranting about arrogant views of neurotypicals always assuming the wildest stuff but I simply don't care.
Just rest assured this is not an edgy teenager statement.
-
-
I convinced three crown attorneys that Macron did Notré Dame. That says a lot about the Canadian justice system, I just don't know what.
-
Nowadays nothing. Part of the problem is im not really looking to win an argument. Im looking to discuss but I have my own conclusions since at this age there is little to nothing I have not thought about at some point. When I say conclusions though that is just a current end state not some sort of this is it and could never be different thing. All the same its not like someone stating they really really think its different or this written thing in my belief is definitive fact is going to cause me to jump up and change.
-
I challenge anyone to debate me about deez nutz
-
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 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.
-
Ooh thats a good one.
Can I ask what your solution is to the problem besides going door to door and raiding people's homes? Because youre never going to get the guns away from people who have them. I have yet to see a solution.
-
In establishing universal healthcare and universal basic income, we will do more to solve violence problems than any gun-centric approach ever could.
-
-
-
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!!
-
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 AI is currently sentient and represents an example of a silicon based life form.
I might not be technically correct but I will absolutely shift the ontological and philosophical framing until I cannot be proven wrong.
-
-
Arguments are for children and those with the mental maturity of a schoolyard bully.
Conversations are where the mature people duke it out, and the point of a conversation is not to win but to see each other on equal ground, understand the position of the other party, and come to a conclusion that benefits both parties.
-
so... semantics?
-
Semantics are for children. Straight up contradiction is where mature people say "No it isn't" to each other to really practice being annoying.
-
I have no idea how you and your other up voters read what I wrote and thought "semantics".
Arguments are "I am right, you are wrong."
Conversations are "I feel I am right, and you feel you are right. Let's try to understand each other and figure out where the disconnect is and how we can meet on common ground to come to an outcome we are both happy with."
There are nuances. Arguments have an undertone of superiority. Conversations have an undertone of trying to understand the other person's perspective and realizing that if somebody has the same perspective as you then you wouldn't be in the situation to begin with.
Now, I want to make it perfectly clear that there are some things where there is no room for conversation - things where facts are being disputed.
This post is an argument since I am too lazy to engage in conversation.
-
-
I know you're trolling but this has been a real point of disagreement between me and my wife. I was raised to think that arguing means making arguments to convince someone, irregardless of the volume of those arguments. My wife was raised to think that arguing means yelling, usually about stuff that should have been hammered out months ago.
Every once in a while I'll accidentally refer to a heated conversation I had with my wife as "remember when we had that argument about ______" and my wife will look at me with this confused and hurt expression as if I had accused her of spousal abuse, because when she hears the word "argument" she thinks of how her parents would argue. Other times when we visit my parents my mom or dad will make a passing comment about how we "argue so much" or "are always going at it" since we're always negotiating and debating and discussing, and then I'll have to quickly reassure my wife that I love her and she's a good person and that my parents also love her and think she's a good person and remind her that my parents meant "debating or negotiating" since they don't consider screaming matches to be arguing.
It's sometimes difficult to remember that many people think arguing means "screaming at each other until one person retreats" because thats what so many parents do. Not saying my parents are saints ofc, but when they had screaming arguments they would retreat, process the arguments, and come back to say "I'm sorry I screamed at you, and also you were right about X and Y, but let's talk about Z more etc" which is what I thought a normal parent argument was.
-
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from fossil capitalism.
You are right and I would vore for this 11/10 times.
Yet, it would break the economy of it were to happen. And 99999/100000 people are status quoers 🫤
Break the economy for who? Who is it actually working the best for now? The wealthy elite love the status quo because they are the ones benefitting from it the most.
Even a random middle class midwest family would benefit from moving away from fossil capitalism, since if done correctly the renewable investments would create millions of new jobs ("new" meaning in a different industry). People need to be able to envision what an ideal future could look like, instead of just the dystopian version of the current reality.
Good luck getting them to do that. The real climate criminals live in the Vatican.
Nah get outta here with your weird cult bullshit. Here's a list for you