1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
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.
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.
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 hitting your children is NOT a good discipline technique.
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)
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.
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.
Nothing
I challenge anyone to debate me about deez nutz
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!!
This parrot you sold me is dead.
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.
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.
Who the bestest boy/girl is.
To a dog, of course.
My problem with this is if I zoom in to them it sets the colour 
That's zoomed in on the sock and you can't say that's not green
Looks teal to me.
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.
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
:-)
I can argue the uselessness of most American gun laws. I should note, a great many of the arguments rely on the fact of the 2nd Amendment and our court's historical interpretation of it.
Almost every law I see proposed either runs afoul of the 2nd, is useless, and worse, many are counterproductive.
Ooh thats a good one.
Can I ask what your solution is to the problem besides going door to door and raiding people's homes? Because youre never going to get the guns away from people who have them. I have yet to see a solution.
In establishing universal healthcare and universal basic income, we will do more to solve violence problems than any gun-centric approach ever could.
