Ask Lemmy

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.

Who the bestest boy/girl is.

To a dog, of course.

What I’ve got in my pocket.

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.

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

:-)

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.

It's pronounced gif

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.

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.

This parrot you sold me is dead.

Why privacy is important

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.

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.

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

That hitting your children is NOT a good discipline technique.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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?)