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)
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.
That is one hell of a point. Where would the Ark have ended up though?
They’d have Top Men working on it.
Who?
Top. Men.
No bottoms? Sounds sus.
That Barry Bonds deserves to be in the HOF. And how sports writers should not be the only bar for an exceptional athlete is being snubbed (Clemens included even though I think he’s a jerk).
That corporate greed is the root of almost every problem we have as a society. The game is fixed and it needs to change.
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.
That hitting your children is NOT a good discipline technique.
This parrot you sold me is dead.
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.
This is Lemmy. I’ll give you one guess… and it ain’t beans.
Communism. Furries. Linux. Woke.
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.
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.
Why does the lizard speak in sarcasm format?
If I remember correctly, I am pretty sure it’s implied he might be a little mentally slow, if you catch my drift. Though I don’t think they play that off for laughs in a negative way, thankfully.
I’d have to go way back to when they first introduce him and read a few more issues with him in it afterwards to verify that, though, since it’s been forever since I’ve read some of the earlier issues.
Edit:
Looks like in the short storyline Peter and Iggy first meet, Iggy was written using with some letters flipped alongside having random lowercase letters dotted about uppercaps, so I definitely think they were going a little overboard on the mentally slow thing. It kinda looks like the sArCaSm thing is more of a way to show he’s still a little slow, but in a slightly less offensive manner.
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
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
I challenge anyone to debate me about deez nutz
