Zhadum in NPO used to do this back in the day. In this thread, I'll make an argument for whatever premise you can come up with. For example: IRON is the greatest alliance in the universe, God does/ does not exist, the French/ Italian trade wars of the 1880s were a good thing, etc. Go.

Okay, so argue in favor of banning zucchini, eggplant, and squash.

Okay, so argue in favor of banning zucchini, eggplant, and squash.

 

That's easy enough. They're revolting.

That's the argument???  I thought it would be a more deeply thought out argument.  Argue in favor of deeply thought out arguments, please.

That's the argument???  I thought it would be a more deeply thought out argument.  Argue in favor of deeply thought out arguments, please.

 

I've noticed that people who think deeply often come to unusual conclusions. This is because most people simply imbibe their views from their culture, family and surroundings without analysing their presuppositions.in other words, our culture (and superficial thinking) can be a roadblock to arriving at truth. Deep thinking leading to deeply thought out arguments and views on the other hand leads to truth. That is why deeply thought out arguments are important.

That was really impressive.

That was really impressive.

 

I live to serve!

How about arguing against oral hygiene?

How about arguing against oral hygiene?

 

I have neglected to clean my teeth for long periods in the past, and my teeth are still in good working order. 

Argue for why Hitler was right in doing what he did.

 

I in no way condone what Hitler and his Gestapo did, but hey, Godwin's Law. I asked Zha the same question and he wrote a 3 page essay on it.

Additionally argue why we should infect everyone with HIV.

Argue for why Hitler was right in doing what he did.

 

I in no way condone what Hitler and his Gestapo did, but hey, Godwin's Law. I asked Zha the same question and he wrote a 3 page essay on it.

 

Easy. Objective morality doesn't exist. What is "right" is just another cultural narrative/ social construct. That is to say, that just as to the communists, what was "right" was what benefited the Party, in the case of Hitler, what is "right" is what benefits and enhances the German race. From their way of thinking, exterminating inferior races such as Jews as well as the mentally handicapped, homosexuals, etc helped along the development of the ubermensch and the German race. There you go!

 

And no, disclaimer: I don't agree with a word of what I just said. I do happen to believe in objective morality and think that Hitler was evil.

Additionally argue why we should infect everyone with HIV.

 

Too many goddamn people on the planet. We need drastic population control measures. If it's a matter of killing large numbers of people in order that the human race may continue, according to utilitarian logic that's a good plan.

Argue for a Clinton presidency.

 

Argue for a Trump presidency.

 

GO!

Argue for a Clinton presidency.

 

Argue for a Trump presidency.

 

GO!

 

Well the best argument for Clinton is that she's not Trump, and for Trump that he's not Clinton. :v

 

But I suppose I can't really leave it at that.

 

From a conservative point of view, the best argument for Trump is that otherwise Clinton is going to appoint at least one and possibly up to four Supreme Court justices, which will mean the end of the conservative moment in the US. (If Clinton appointed four Supreme Court justices, as a conservative Christian I would seriously emigrate, and no I'm not joking. Happily, I don't live in the US.)

 

I think the second strongest argument for Trump is that the Democrat foreign policy re: the Middle East has been nothing short of idiotic. Bombing and destabilising Libya, bombing Assad aka the guy fighting ISIS, supporting the "democratic uprisings" in Egypt, supporting Turkey joining the EU, etc. They're delusional. Trump at least isn't a postmodern lefty and he just might have a slightly better foreign policy (but then again, it was the Republicans who invaded Iraq....)

 

As for Clinton: well, there's the fact that she's sane, that she's (probably) not going to go dropping nuclear bombs on people (I wouldn't want Trump anywhere near the big red button), she doesn't belittle or make crude sexual jokes about women, she doesn't support all Muslims being forced into a national register, she doesn't support surveillance of mosques, she's not going to whip up xenophobic hysteria, she (I believe?) extremely sensibly supports restrictions on guns..... she's just another power-hungry normal politician like the rest of them who won't do anything.

Argue for you becoming the world's supreme leader and how people will love you without you forcing them, threating them with death, or brainwashing everybody.

Argue that Jar Jar Binks is secretly Supreme Leader Snoke.

Argue that Jar Jar Binks is secretly Supreme Leader Snoke.

Argue how jar jar is awesome and is loved by all and is the best star wars character.

 

Argue for jar jar being a sith lord.

Argue for the non-existence of God

Argue for the non-existence of God

 

Was waiting on this

Argue for why red is objectively better than blue. 

Argue for the abolishing guns then argue for forcing every citizen to carry a loaded weapon.  

Argue why this was a bad idea.

Argue for you becoming the world's supreme leader and how people will love you without you forcing them, threating them with death, or brainwashing everybody.

 

"Argue for you becoming the world's supreme leader" --- I'm assuming this is the first part of the question and that you want me to explain why I would make a great world supreme leader. Well, it has been said (by wiser people than me) that the people most suited to rule are people who have absolutely no interest in power, which sums me up extremely well. I'm not ambitious, have no desire to rule, dislike politics. I'd make a great dictator of the universe!

 

How will people love me without forcing them/ threatening them with death/ brainwashing everyone? Well, that's really quite straightforward. As dictator of the entire world, I can impose massive taxes on multibillionaires without them taking their businesses overseas. The abolition of borders would resolve this problem. So, impose massive taxes on multibillionaires and bribe the rest of the population. Problem solved.

 

Argue that Jar Jar Binks is secretly Supreme Leader Snoke.

 

Jar Jar was such an incredibly annoying character that nobody could seriously have come up with a movie script including him if he didn't play some more nefarious purpose. If he was actually Supreme Leader Snoke it would explain this apparent serious lack of judgment on George Lucas' part!

 

Argue how jar jar is awesome and is loved by all and is the best star wars character.

 

Argue for jar jar being a sith lord.

 

As to him being a Sith Lord: Jar Jar seems to kick butt in battle, despite apparently being completely incompetent, and comes out totally unscathed. He demonstrates Jedi/ Sith abilities throughout the movies such as an impressive force jump. Additionally, there are a few clips where Jar Jar's mouth seems to be moving in sync with other characters' dialogue, which is kinda spooky... it could be explained by him using Jedi mind-control and helping to will the events of the first movie in his favour! (I think this also covers Jar Jar being awesome/ best star wars character)

 

As for loved by all.... um.... well who couldn't love such a friendly, silly, comedic character? The apparent mass hatred for Jar Jar is just because people feel peer pressured to hate him when actually they all love him deep down and delude each other into thinking that he is unpopular, when actually he is uniformly loved. If they would just be honest with each other, they would come to realise that he is universally loved.

 

Argue for the non-existence of God

 

Well there's just no evidence, other than like, the kalam cosmological argument, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the argument from beauty, the argument from consciousness, the argument from the historicity of the Resurrection, the ontological argument, Pascal's Wager, the argument from personal experience, the Leibnizian contingency argument, etc etc etc. I mean, apart from that, who could believe in sky daddy?

 

The argument from evil means that God simply could not possibly exist. If he's all knowing, all powerful and omnibenevolent, suffering could not logically exist.

 

Argue for why red is objectively better than blue. 

 

Blue is such a drab colour. I mean, the sky is blue all throughout the day, and it's nothing exceptional. With a sunset, the sky turns red and it is objectively beautiful, which is to say, in God's eyes it is more beautiful than a blue sky. 

 

Argue for the abolishing guns then argue for forcing every citizen to carry a loaded weapon.  

 

Getting rid of guns amongst the citizenry would be a great idea. If people aren't armed, it means they aren't able to shoot each other. Simple. In Australia and New Zealand, we don't have an armed citizenry, and we also don't have endless high school shootouts! Funny that.

 

Of course, forcing every citizen to carry a loaded weapon would also be a great idea, because if someone goes on a shooting rampage, other armed citizens can shoot back and stop them. If guns aren't legal they'll simply be got off the black market and ordinary citizens will b defenceless.

 

Argue why this was a bad idea.

 

Arguments lead to squabbles and dissension and can lead to people falling out with each other.

This does make for an open mind though. I used to do similar things. It can be fun.