Man, there is no end to the contradictions you have. This one is great because you completely discredit yourself.
You personally believe that you can't convince voters for Democrats with your truth because they refuse to hear it, but you also think that Republicans were able to change the minds of voters for Democrats. Therefore, either you are lying about telling the truth or you recognize that Republicans had to lie to won the election. But, you also believe that the only honest party in the election were the Republicans. So, either way you are a liar. Thanks man.
Are you going to put out a greatest misses album? These are gold.
That's not even the definition of insanity, it's just a quote. Trying to dispute someone else's opinion isn't equivalent to a having a disorder that's detrimental to life quality, but gg
Yeah, perseveration would fit much better in this context, though even that's just a sign/symptom of a mental disorder and not actually one in itself. It's interesting, but imo still not enough to classify someone who incessantly debates as having disrupted cognitive abilities.
To be fair I'd wager that a lot of the time when people argue, they don't actually expect to change the other person's opinion. I guess with anything that's not totally based on facts though the problem of induction is a fair thing to bring up. No matter what conclusion ends up being reached someone out there is still gonna argue that whatever was figured out because of the debate doesn't necessarily translate into usable information
I can't say for sure... I've only heard rumours about people arguing in the corners of the Internet, such as the YouTube comments section.
But from what I've heard, it seems pretty much insane.
Yes, usable information, or pragmatic truths, is a rare thing to come by from them. They seem to reflect more of insecurity than persuasion. Like they want to win over some crowd, as is the case of public debates. But still, with a lot of insecurity.
I wouldn't call it an argument, but the exact word evades me.
Damn, and here I was sure that YouTube's comment section was a great place for civil discussion
Nah, jokes aside, usually those types of arguments are more so meant to prove a perspective wrong than they are meant to show why theirs is the best one, whether that be objectively or not. I guess it's a contradictory cycle because if you're looking from it at that point of view, nothing is really being accomplished but someone still trying to get a thought across.
Your debate hinges on your definition of "insanity" and that definition is neither a textbook nor contextual definition but instead just a working definition that suits your cause in this case, and it applies only to some but not all cases. People with dementia, schizophrenia, clinical depression, whatever, do not necessarily fit the repeat behaviors expecting different results definition even though those are well recognized examples of insanity.
But if you expected a different reply from me than this one then indeed you might fit your definition and confirm your own debate topic just in your own case.