“I’m so right I don’t even need to read the thing I’m pointing to which I think makes me right”

Wanna know what issue it was? Abortion

it was an article about freakonomics

Freakonomics?

Also, that’s why I get so frustrated with the NYT and such

Burying the leads

at the time I was familiar with the methodology they used to make the points, and I was able to challenge them. Since he didn't know the study or the methodology or the subjects, he was compeltely absent minded

Because most people don’t read past the fucking headline

Yeah

You're wrong because this headline says I'm right! Because... yes!

“I can’t tell you why, but that’s why I’m right! I’m so right all my arguments are self-explanatory!”

My favorite thing is when they take something you say, and say, "Just because x, doesn't automatically mean y"
They have no points, so they recoil in desperation and play the skeptic

If you don't know what freakonomics is, it's this study that suggests that aborting babies reduces the crime rate

I actually don't recall the years they measured

That’s inherently racist

Because most crimes are committed by black people

See I can argue like a leftist too

but it was glaring enough for me to dig into the external factors behind crime rate lowering, after abortion became legal I mean

yeah

Ah

I took the arguments head-on

So they do that but not increased gun ownership and lower crime rates

_Interesting_

there's many reasons why crime lowered since abortion became leagal

_Almost like they have an agenda_

haha yeah

“Just because someone is white, doesn’t automatically mean they are racist”

System error

Blue screen imminent

I don't even go as far as Ben in the argument. He says that the same logic they use in freakonomics to abort babies can be used to kill black people in cities. I could take that route but I enjoyed digging into the study and what not. It was one of the few studies I did a lot of homework for

yeah

Nice work mate

But going as far as Ben? What do you mean?

And I’m assuming you mean Shapiro?

yeah, sorry

I mean his approach gives them a pass on what their sources are, and uses their conclusion to make a bigger point

Hmmm fair enough

It’s effective in many applications but it’s harder to make the point to them about how wrong they are and possibly change their mind

But at the same time... does he really wanna change minds though?

Yeah, in debating, you're presupposing they are as reasonable as you

because most of the time you'll find you're arguing with a brick wall