comment: >
  
  
  
  Do you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.
  
  
  Have you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”
  
  
  I realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.
context: /u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Citing the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.
  So the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?
  If you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.
  Now whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do. >
  
  True and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing. >
  
  It’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports >
  
  
  don't care about reasoned debate 
  This came about after interacting with my family over the holidays
  This is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.
  
  You have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. 
  
  It truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, 
  
  Politics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. 
  
  even if it is an objectively bad idea.
  
  I'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. 
  
  Healthcare? "Privatise it!" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.
  
  Do you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. 
  
  Transgender athletes? "Ban them.
  
  I don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. 
  
  I also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.
  
  This seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal. >
  
  Lia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky) >
  
  She set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.
  According to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. 
  Lia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.
  Lia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.
  Lia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.
  Your argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason. >
  
  The main problem with political "debate" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. 
  If you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.
  This makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.
  If you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.
  In person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion "on their own." And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.
  But again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds. >
  
  
  Transgender athletes? "Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!" Even though no data agrees with their position.
  
  Yes there are, please check out these two papers:
  
  
  Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021
  
  
  How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021
  
  
  Both conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. 
  Note that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman. >
  
  A reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.
  But all of them? That isn’t the case at all.
  Look at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.
  You might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it. >
  
  Clearly you are misinformed.
  Our current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.
  The NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics. >
  
  Again, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.
  You are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.
  Every study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.
  The actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning. >
  
  Did you?
  You're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. 
  Singapore is "cheaper" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization. >
  
  Bad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. 
  Most people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. 
  The OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief >
  
  If reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. 
  But the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.
  They present Singapore as "conservative works" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model. >
  
  You are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people. >
  
  All the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. 
  I have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at. >
  
  You're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact? >
  
  Cite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. 
  I described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that. >
  
  This seems like a you problem. 
  Both examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.
  In short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold. >
  
  “Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded” >
  
  Maybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate? >
  
  Clearly you've never met my parents.
  My father's motto is "politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways" >
  
  Just a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? 
  People on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it
  So perhaps the reason you think "Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try >
  
  
  They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.
  
  There's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.  If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate.  That would make you and your manners the problem.
  You're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.
  
  This is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.
  
  When someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: "I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that."
  
  Now, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position
  
  This tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything.  If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you?  Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.
  Sorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you. >
  
  
  There's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.
  
  I don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. 
  
  When someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: "I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that."
  
  I mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him. >
  
  I might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. 
  I’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al). >
  
  I mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. 
  Trump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative. >
  
  Well, it’s a distinction that I think is important. 
  Some in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. 
  And if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. 
  Because there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.
  Edit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. 
  If you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. 
  It was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”. >
  
  OP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.
  Right-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:
  
  Privatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.
  
  The thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?
  That question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.
  You're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.
  Taxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.
  You can come up with all sorts of arguments like "well just leave society then" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.
  Ultimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work. >
  
  it's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.
  the usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.
  not only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing >
  
  
  the usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.
  
  Actually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.
  If your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? 
  Because honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.
  The healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba. >
  
  its not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's >
  
  
  its not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's
  
  Yep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. 
  The US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things.  
  None of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.
  Because ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare -  and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic? >
  
  ...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo >
  
  If a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall. >
  
  
  If a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.
  
  Except that your characterization is wrong.
  It provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. 
  That is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.
  You don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like. >
  
  Transgender athletes? "Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!" Even though no data agrees with their position
  well there is your problem =)
  you are way to sure about your own opinions.
  is it possible for them to persuade you about anything?
  why do you expect it to be different the other way around? >
  
  No. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not "being too sure" of my own position it's "no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite" >
  
  Is your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?
  If she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?
  What if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record? >
  
  It is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently. >
  
  
  It is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,
  
  Lia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.
  This seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.
  ​
  
  as does the scientific data we have currently.
  
  Some of the scientific data we have currently:
  
  In transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source
  
  ​
  
  The 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source
  
  ​
  
  We have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)
  
  ​
  
  CPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source >
  
  You think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on "I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe. >
  
  Op has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond. >
  
  What is your definition of "conservative"? >
  
  Someone who is political right leaning. >
  
  That definition doesn't help much. >
  
  
  Now my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.
  
  I couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!
  
  Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!" Even though no data agrees with their position
  
  Cmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.
  
  Then leave society.
  
  Tell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.
  
  I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.
  
  More ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives. >
  
  If your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.
  If you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.
  "If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich" >
  
  That's a declaration. None of your "argument" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs? >
  
  If you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs.    
  
  This is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? "Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!"
  
  Conservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is.   
  So a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here "here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports." The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say. >
  
  That would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either. >
  
  Your post screams "conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views." 
  I think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your "caring about others" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace. >
  
  Well seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.
  And yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because "they keep the poor subservient!"
  These are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.
  In fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough). >
  
  So as you put it "Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are "fighting" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?
  ​
  So the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony? >
  
  The white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality
  The fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose) >
  
  The white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic. >
  
  Honestly, this is not a "conservatives" issue, and is a "everyone in certain situations" issue.  Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.
  I've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example.  You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of "I don't want my money to help fund other people"?
  If you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that.  In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank.  While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it? >
  
  Just a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.
  Not saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them. >
  
  I think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on.  Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder?  Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one.  It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.
  The left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby.  The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get. >
  
  Your argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.
  Of course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means. >
  
  Except this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with >
  
  And that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.
  Extrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong. >
  
  Yes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from. >
  
  I've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample.  Any thoughts on the meat of my response? >
  
  
  Pot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.
  I think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.
  If you can say "I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position," then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to. >
  
  Below is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).
  
  Okay, but Republicans do this with every argument. "Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too?  
  Covid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use.  
  Oil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds.  
  I have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.
  
  Also, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments. >
  
  If you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met. >
  
  
  on. Transgender athletes? "Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!" Even though no data agrees with their position
  
  ...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. 
  Literally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.
  have you considered  they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.
  
  Privatisation has failed in America
  
  The US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA >
  
  
  Literally all data supports this 
  
  Literally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. 
  
  The US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA
  
  Only about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. 
  The US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible. >
  
  Says “literally all data shows…”
  … shows none of the data >
  
  
  You said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…
  The study is only concerned with long distance running.
  Her study only included “a few transgender women…”
  She’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but "her approach is highly respected." 
  
  Did you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?
  In what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages” >
  
  People can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic. >
  
  i don't think that many people care about reasoned debate.  people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong.  also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be "debated".  those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations.    
  i think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists.  liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have "established" media and academia on their side, i'd argue.  which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists.    
  i don't think education has much to do with it.  education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person.  you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that. >
  
  Do you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA? >
  
  This is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist. >
  
  Both sides do this >
  
  There’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.
  On an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason. >
  
  There are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic. >
  
  You sound exactly like what you are blaming others of. >
  
  Conservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views. >
  
  Conservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao. >
  
  Far too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc. >
  
  That's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist. >
  
  I mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.
  I tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person. >
  
  They're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem. >
  
  It's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position. >
  
  
  Then leave society. 
  
  If you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem. >
  
  I don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is "leave society" if you truly feel that way. >
  
  The conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment. >
  
  Sure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.
  They want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy. >
  
  And leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite. >
  
  Ya, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. >
  
  Did you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. 
  That’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them. >
  
  It sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on? >
  
  We’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. 
  If somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. 
  If somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. 
  If the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.
  If the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. 
  That’s the difference here. >
  
  I mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. 
  Play devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.
  A decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable. >
  
  
  Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.
  
  Tell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.
  My testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it. >
  
  Regardless. Going through puberty before "transition care" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here. >
  
  And the goalpost-moving begins.
  Okay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it? >
  
  What I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is "fair" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. 
  If there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. 
  And anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing. >
  
  
  What I'm getting at is that it's a variable.
  
  So is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's "a variable".
  
  If there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal
  
  How do you suggest we acquire this "indisputable evidence"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.
  
  But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. 
  
  And there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding "indisputable" evidence from your opponents.
  
  And anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.
  
  I mean...yes? That's precisely why the "BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that. >
  
  Your resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.
  I personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.
  Lol I do appreciate the talk though! >
  
  Just a couple points:
  
  Privatization has failed in America
  
  We don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. 
  On the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not "did this male swimmer do much better than any female could" but "Does being male give them an unfair advantage" >
  
  All evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability. >
  
  OP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish. >
  
  Liberals too. Most "us vs them" types aren't interested in changing their views lol >
  
  Have you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?
  Why not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas? >
  
  I was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count. >
  
  I'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. 
  Your CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. 
  The only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.
  Could you clear this up? >
  
  It's not "all conservatives" just like it's "not all men" and "not all cops"
  The point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying "I used to be a conservative" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.
  Essentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.
  Also every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise. >
  
  There's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. 
  Tackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident,  talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering. >
  
  The latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.
  Brexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all. >
  
  I'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable "also if it's a subject I know a good amount of" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse. >
  
  Not sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content >
  
  If you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.
  Take trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages.  Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet.  If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.
  Similarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.
  The US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better.  
  The US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. 
  To be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train. >
  
  Not to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. 
  Seems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t. >
  
  What about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies >
  
  It's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.
  If this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying "I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished"
  The more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.
  It doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position. >
  
  Incredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals! >
  
  I am a conservative, and I disagree.
  Issue 1
  Transgender Athletes:
  Being born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.
  Males have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.
  A transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.
  A transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.
  Allowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.
  For starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.
  There are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.
  If one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.
  Then you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.
  Then you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.
  A good solution to this could be an "Trans Only Sports League".
  Issue 2
  Socialized Medicine:
  There are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.
  Then you have issues like "elective surgeries". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.
  Generally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.
  
  Quality (How good is it?)
  Quantity (How much of there is it?)
  Cost (How expensive is it?)
  
  To improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.
  If you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.
  If you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.
  If you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.
  I will give some real world examples:
  Rice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.
  Lamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.
  Doctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.
  However, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.
  We could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.
  I would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need. >
  
  First we should stop using "biological women" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the "biological" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a "biological woman" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).
  Secondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying "they have a technical advantage" and the left is saying "prove it's unfair."
  It's the "left handed fencer" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say "left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.
  Your healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.
  Also: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.
  Wait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems >
  
  I don't like to use the term "Cis". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.
  I have seen LGBT people bash people by saying "Die Cis Scum!" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.
  Cis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.
  I refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.
  Gender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.
  To me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.
  Gendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.
  You may ask me. "What is truth?"
  There are 3 types of truth.
  Scientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.
  The male and female binary is a "Scientific Truth." It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.
  What you speak of as a "Social Construct" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.
  Lastly we have a "Political Truth". That is something like "Video games cause violence." It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.
  I respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.
  Your argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that "Some people are intersex." That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly "male" or "female". Which is the norm.
  When I say people are "Male and female". I mean that is the norm much like "People have ten toes." Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.
  What you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an "Intersex" person.
  The vast majority of "Non Binary" or "Transgender" people are not "Intersex".
  Left handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.
  Left handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.
  Left handed people can not run faster than right handed people.
  Left handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.
  It's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.
  The difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.
  A high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls
  Males and females are not built the same way.
  As for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. 
  What about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?
  What about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?
  Granted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.
  However, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone. >
  
  I'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.
  Good day, I hope you enjoy your weekend. >
  
  Reason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable. >
  
  I’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it. >
  
  
  So I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.
  
  Anyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is "The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright".
  You then cite examples, which are... examples...
  
  It truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.
  
  Which is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. "Defund The Police" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it "feels good" and "is a nice thing to do".
  
  Now, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions
  
  They probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......
  
  I also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.
  
  ......And THAT is why. 
  If you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this "Right vs Left" idea that youre walking into. People meme on "the enlightened centrist", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other... >
  
  "defund the police" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline. >
  
  Yeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!
  Either youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing... >
  
  The actual position though is not the headline.
  Being against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting. >
  
  I’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting >
  
  I think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost. >
  
  Ive learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.
  Inflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.
  We don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. 
  We want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their "solutions" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. 
  To us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. 
  Plus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, "it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.
  Or even, ohhh theres a denier."
  But I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.
  Plus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the "safety net" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. 
  When Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. 
  We are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.
  We don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.
  No lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly "ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah." But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it. >
  
  
  they're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us
  
  Lists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one. >
  
  Strasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.
  Ideologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam. >
  
  None of those Muslims sound Christian. >
  
  From what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family. >
  
  I kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. 
  I think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems >
  
  This. As a conservative, I've had online "debates" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of "I can't even bother arguing anymore" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives. >
  
  Well than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population >
  
  What? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo… >
  
  You don't win almost every election wiseass. >
  
  It says “every other election” buddy…
  EDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true >
  
  Liberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind. >
  
  Wait wait wait.
  Hold up.
  Conservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?
  Have they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?
  Why am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again? >
  
  It's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that. >
  
  I'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school. >
  
  "Left-wing people's views have flaws" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind. >
  
  Hierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.
  The right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like "Communism doesn't work", it's not because they want poverty and inequality >
  
  How are hierarchies valuable?
  And there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.
  There's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it. >
  
  Flat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)
  They also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.
  And consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.
  If a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?
  While CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.
  That all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function. >
  
  I think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.
  It's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.
  How 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.
  You're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.
  This is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.
  If I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.
  I didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.
  It's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.
  I think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.
  How the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority. >
  
  I didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. 
  That's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.
  The 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. 
  Whether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.
  I agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.
  I don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?
  My whole point is to argue with your assertion that "undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do".
  No, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. 
  We will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.
  You seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.
  If you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.
  This isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt. >
  
  What would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates? >
  
  Conservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact.  They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe. >
  
  I would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith >
  
  I think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right?   
  For the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states "The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. 
  So the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). 
  So just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the "science" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well. >
  
  Op has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being "no data" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.
  Don't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV >
  
  Here's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it >
  
  I think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite). >
  
  National Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth! >
  
  That's just saying "America is too fucked for this to be a good idea" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.
  Privatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples. >
  
  Samuel Clemons once said the following...
  
  We are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.
  
  Many people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.
  Conservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.
  This isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.
  I believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.
  Does that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives? >
  
  And your family is representative of all conservatives? >
  
  I’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. 
  Also, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative,  and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.