Argument Exercise

ITT: Sincerely come up with the best argument you can for something you vehemently disagree with, then explain why you disagree with it.

>money=speech
Free speech is free speech, once you allow any form of arbitrary limitation on a source you are laying the groundwork for suppression of ideas based on source. To limit someone's ability to spend freely on supporting an ideology that they espouse cuts at the very basis of the first amendment.

>At some point, exercising speech with unlimited funding becomes a megaphone which is ITSELF a suppressant of the speech of others. There must be some balance between allowing those with the means of establishing and promoting a platform the right to do so, while simultaneously opposing their ability to simply shout down the speech of those they disagree with.

I'm still torn about this one, but it's the only real thing I've switched position on in the past few years.

It seems like somehow censorship must occur. What is the solution?

>What's the solution?
absolutely no clue.

What kind of metric can be used to determine where speech turns from supporting your own opinions/positions into simply washing over the opinions of others? It seems like an arbitrary standard wouldn't be complex enough to deal with the shifts in modern communication systems, so a judicial board would be the most flexible and "best" solution... But that's obviously a fascist wet dream, and wholly undesirable.

As a libertarian, this cuts deep into my roots of "let people do them, it'll all work out" because it highlights the glaring issue with true libertarianism in that it relies on the morality and awareness of the population to self regulate, whereas the vast majority of people are self involved pieces of shit...

OP is not a fag.
ergo sum
OP is always a faggot.

No. I did that devils advocate shit when I was younger and more tolerant. Tolerance has now allowed behavior and ideologies I despise to thrive while they simultaneously suppress my values and way of life. Fuck inderstanding. Fuck tolerance and seeing things from both sides. I don't even care if how I want to live is righteous anymore, I just want this diseased society to leave me the fuck alone and stop extorting me into paying for the decisions of losers.

the only way to dismantle an argument is to understand it... But that requires it to have an actual logical basis. Modern debate has turned into feelings, purposely opaque terminology and virtue signaling so in the end, your method is probably the most sane approach.

NEETs on welfare or paid for my parents hating non-white people and considering themselves above them are insanely delusional.

I interact with non-white people everyday who contribute more to our society and are more deserving of rights than at least half the faggots on this board.

>signed, a Jewish shill.

You forgot your pic

Time for discrete logic.

IF AND ONLY IF The world is a safe place THEN Nobody needs a gun
IF Nobody has any gun THEN the world would be a safe place
IF AND ONLY IF Nobody gets a gun illegally THEN Nobody has a gun
IF Humans are assholes THEN Someone will get a gun illegally

Humans are assholes
THEREFORE Someone will get a gun illegally
THEREFORE Someone has a gun
THEREFORE The world is not a safe place
THEREFORE People need guns

Not asking you to be tolerant. Just trying to encourage a better understanding of things you are free to remain intolerant of

>the vast majority of people are self-involved pieces of shit

That's why I have trouble buying into any political or economic system that can be easily dismantled by selfishness. Libertarianism, communism, socialism, etc. all have too much room for one person to fuck everyone else over.

IF the world is fully under totalitarian control THEN nobody will get a gun illegally

THEREFORE the world would be a safe place IF it was fully under totalitarian control

>Blacks exist

This ain't legit syntax, but the answer would simply be:

IF you can make a gun with spare parts from the home depot THEN there will be illegal guns

It is possible to make a gun with spare parts from the home depot
THERFORE there will be illegal guns

Not an argument.

I win.

The counter for that would be full surveillance

Basically giving up all rights and all privacy will lead to full safety

Not an argument

Meat eating is inherently wrong since humans are objectively herbivores according to our body.

Not an argument.

Anybody got the link to vegan woman whose baby died from malnutrition because her breastmilk was insufficient.

Meat eating is wrong first because of disease. Second because it's weird to eat corpses and the flesh of animals.

>objectively herbivores according to our body.

Not sure if retard?

You know, herbivores can't digest meat, right?

Surveilance is man made and man made things are faulty and can be circumvented.

The only way true safety can be achieved if we become the Borg collective where all thoughts are one.

True communism can be achieved via mass lobotomy.

No emotion, no commotion.

what is the definition/criteria of an "Argument" from a philosophical perspective?