!agree

hello my dudes

im bored who wants to debate

no me

I'll play devils advocate on basically anything, just say a topic

idk

whats ligma btw

ya ligma bossack, what is that?

do you have ligma?

From what I heard it was terminal

does someone wanna argue with me about the alex jones thing?

I'll take the pro-removal side of the debate

oh, so you agree with me that alex jones should've been removed

how so

You dont see the point in debating ideas?

How is the actual point of view relevant to a debate that's focused solely on ideas?

Not neccessarily, if my point of view is that gay people should be given rights, but I argue against someone on the idea that gay people should have rights, my point of view doesnt align with my idea

Thats under the assumption that the person arguing the opposition is not attempting to make the strongest argument from the other side

Ok, so lets assume for argument sake that the person arguing the view contrary to their own is not employing a strawman as their argument, would you still say that it is not worth arguing with them

You could employ that logic with any argument you have with anyone though, regardless of if they're holding a view true to their actual view or not

Do you want to have the correct opinion?

This applies to any subject

We may have different goals in regards to what we expect to get out of an argument, generally in an argument all I care about is whether my opinion is correct

When you are arguing, would you say your primary goal is to convince the opposing side of your point of view?

Do you think you can sufficiently argue every opinion you have in private?

how do you know if you do

Correct, but in a general sense when working within our knowledge structure I would argue that it is impossible to detach yourself from your own subjective reality, and as such you will have blind spots in relation to your opinions

The way to correct these blind spots is by testing your ideas through discourse

homonculus, havent heard that one in a while lol

When I said correct I was referring to your first statement

In regards to your first statement, I would say thats not necessarily true. When I argue with someone my secondary reason behind debating someone is because I want to convince them of my point of view, however my primary reason is to have the most correct opinion possible within the bounds of my knowledge structure

Btw when I say first statement I meant the one where you said
*If you are debating someone and change their point of view thats the point of a debate*

When you say fake opinion, can you define what you mean by that

Thats what I assume he means but I'd like confirmation on that

So just to be clear, when you say fake opinion you don't mean strawman of a position, but devils advocate while taking the strongest opinion possible on a the position you're defending

Given that my primary reasoning for engaging in a debate is to have the most correct opinion possible, playing devils advocate helps strengthen my knowledge of the opposing sides view while also possibly introducing me to more arguments in favor/against my original stance

Also I dont know what you mean by mental masturbation, can you define it and why you think its bad?

@Fitzydog again, thats not neccessarily true
Do you need me to give you an example in which this is not neccessarily true?

So I am personally a moral-realist, my knowledge on moral-realism is extremely limited because I havent taken a course in philosophy on moral-realism. If someone who were a PHD student in philosophy were an anti-moral-realist, he would be able to make the point of moral-realism better than I would even though he doesnt truely believe it

Wait, what do you mean by that

is that relevant to my argument at all?

@Fitzydog who says you're using word games to win?

Black and white fallacy

I never said that

Its possible for valid arguments to be on both sides, the point is determining which arguments are and arent valid

Wait so do you concede your original point?

are you saying I'm holding a contradicting opinion, or that you are

Again, like I think I said maybe 4 times, when debating people have different goals as to what they want to achieve

if your goal is to improve your own argument, then playing devils advocate can be helpful towards that goal

Theres multiple ways to improve an argument, you know that right?

Someone can have all of the information they need to come to a correct conclusion and still be misguided

And how do they find out that their argument is wrong

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is why we should argue

If two people are arguing the same points but one actually believes them, it doesnt make a difference

Is your only goal when arguing with someone to convince them of your point of view

Then thats irresponsible, your attempting to convince people of a point of view that you dont try to falsify

You're saying that the point of debate isnt to come to the most correct opinion possible, you're only concerned with convincing other people of your opinion

No it isnt

My objective when going into a debate isnt to convince the other guy, its to discuss ideas and test them to see if they work

So you think people should correct their opinions when they're proven wrong?

So you DO care about coming to the most correct opinion possible, then you agree with my previous statements regarding debating people who dont truely hold the belief they're arguing for

I dont think you can hold the first one and not the second one while remaining consistent

Its irrelevant because if your goal is to come to the most correct opinion possible, whether the person you're arguing with actually believes what they're saying is irrelevant

to you to

https://gyazo.com/dbc07302a43760af12ee7d3b2486eb30

Why though

You're just making an ad hominem fallacy

I dont know what that means

If your goal is to come to the most correct opinion possible, then thats irrelevant

What is the difference between a discussion and a debate to you

Would you say that in a discussion the primary goal is to come to the most correct opinion while a debate the primary goal is to be right

But in regards to the content of a discussion compared to a debate, what differentiates the two

I dont think we're gonna agree on this and I have to go, was fun talking

stay safe my dude

<:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

im more concerned with russian collusion in our elections than this tbh

@What Would Jack Conte Do? are you a race realist?

do I look like a mod?

its because I am a badly drawn ms paint

What do you mean by its more moral

But we're not only talking about welfare

we're also talking about things along the lines of police and firefighters

infrastructure

https://gyazo.com/b8cbd92e246b47b93309743eb5944891

You said everything

Private isnt local government

Local government is not a part of the private sector

Because the private sector can't do everything

@Fitzydog you said that in regards to EVERYTHING except for military, do you stand by that claim?

Im asking you to justify your claims, its in your perogative to justify them if you want to prove you're correct

Its not nitpicky though, hes making an ancap argument

im asking him to justify this, if he doesnt actually believe that then he should say he doesnt

there's a lot of fucking people who believe that the governments only job is to protect the borders

@xX_NotVergil_Xx Ancap's believe that the role of government is purely defense

anarcho-fascism

Wait no its not

The money that goes into welfare comes from taxation

holy gish gallop, ok
So you said *You are giving your money to institutions that privilege the good people in society by relieving them of the conscience while punishing the greedy.*
Who are you referring to when you say good people and greedy people, do you mean the rich and the poor or am I missing something?