First of all

Go.

I'd like for you to exhibit where I called idealism untruthy and ridiculous.

Just so I can get a picture of where you're coming from with this

Or whether or not you're going off of pure inference

I'm well acquainted with the typical types of the right-wingers with their aggressive tactics

By asserting that idealism is for the weak minded, and right after that asserting that the real truth is that after we die, we don't know anything, you've indirectly rejected idealism
by saying its for the weak minded, you obviously implied it was ridiculous, since if its for the weak minded, the only reason people would adopt the belief was to cope

This is basic social cues 101

First of all - I'll acknowledge my theory as to what idealism really is and what it's purpose is.

Idealism is nothing more than a tool of crowd control - used to build civilisations and societies by instilling social norms, morales and a moral compass.

The original intention with demanding a debate here was to substantiate your implicit rejection of idealism, which you thus far haven't done. The only thing you have done was repeatedly re assert that idealism is ridiculous, and is a coping mechanism used by the weak to compensate

Are you listening then

I am listening, hence my response calling out what you're just doing

Idealists use immaterial abstractions such as mythology and stories of special circumstances to teach these morales - whilst also instilling the existence of a superior being into the mind - making the self acknowledge that their actions are being supervised and monitored - subject to judgement upon death.

This is nothing new.

It's a classic system of justice - which we use in modern societies nowadays.

Can i respond now?

We instil into children from young that certain things are not to be replicated as it will lead to prison sentence and punishment.

Yeah sure.

Your mere description of idealism presupposes the rejection of idealism. No person which accepts idealism describes idealism as "a tool of crowd control". Only people that do do that are materialists who already reject idealism. So I'm asking you once again, refute idealism. You cannot keep on presupposing that its false and yet not bring a single argument against it

Well in all honesty - I can't view idealism from a idealist's viewpoint merely from the fact that I have learnt the criticism of it from a materialist viewpoint.

Then present the Criticism of it which you've learnt

I have.

It's function as a tool of control

of masses.

Well your criticism of idealism presupposes the falsity of idealism, thus you presuppose the falsity of a conclusion within the argument against the conclsuion, making it a fallacious argument

You don't ask autists to define autism.

@21ooAB Could you get involved here, please?

Or ask Schizophrenics what schizophrenia is

^

That's a non sequitor

Because their reality is altered

but it's their reality

No that's a non sequitor, ideologies are not the same as mental illnesses

Can you make your point for idealism

I tried

You're asking me to argue idealism from the perspective of an idealist

which is impossible

Well I'm yet to see a refutation of it. You said it was false, and your argument as to how it was false presupposed the falsity of the conclusion, which I assume you know is a fallacy. You cant presupose the falsity of a conclusion within the argument against that conclusion

Also I never demanded that. I demanded an argument against idealism which doesnt presuppose invalidity of idealism within one of its propositions

To suppose that idealism is real for a minute is to be an idealist entirely

That's just ridiculously wrong. I can epistomologically conceive of X without believing X