comment: >
  
  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.
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 >
  
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  The entire point on healthcare only works from a UK perspective because it is specific to UK politics. You can't really bring American politics and healthcare into it to argue against that point. Because the answer in America is different. Shocker, I know, different countries require different implementations of public services.
  "advantages aren't unfair and one where they are.
  Left-handed athletes have advantages over right-handed athletes in many sports. It is perhaps most marked in fencing where 40% of elite fencers are left-handed versus 10% of the population is left-handed.
  But right-handed fencers and left-handed fencers can engage in meaningful competition despite the advantages that left-handed fencers have
  "The science is in its infancy and we are not going to have definitive answers for probably 20 years.
  There are some, including the IOC, that have said until we know [more] we shouldn't restrict trans athletes.
  What I would say is that until we know for sure, sport's governing bodies should do the best they can with the data that exists, with the knowledge that we have today, with the understanding that any policy they create now should be subject to change one we get more data.
  So for instance, World Athletics has said that once transgender women reduce testosterone for 12 months, they should be allowed in. That's not a perfect policy - nobody is saying it is - but World Athletics has said this is the best we can do with the available science.
  That I think is a more reasonable approach than either saying there shouldn't be any restrictions on trans women or we shouldn't let trans women in until we know for certain."
  This is pretty much the entire point I was meaning to make with saying "there is no advantage"
  Essentially "there's no meaningful reason to ban trans people from women's sports based on current real world results.
  But your usage of the term dominating women's sports and using an article about Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges proves you to not really be acting in good faith. Neither dominated their events. Lia Thomas performed less than average for prior winners of her event. >
  
  
  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 don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point.
  
  And I was referring to the part where they talked about the post coming from their experiences over the holidays.
  
  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.
  
  That is not as important a distinction as you seem to think it is.
  
  And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now.
  
  Someone with the opposite prejudice could say the exact same thing about progressives and be equally wrong.
  What you're telling me is that you're incurious about conservatives, don't know very much about them outside the role they play as your adversary and would rather be comfortable in your assumptions than actually seek out conservative debates. >
  
  
  Someone with the opposite prejudice could say the exact same thing about progressives and be equally wrong.
  
  I don't even think they'd be equally wrong but less so given that cancelling, banning and refusing debate is far from symmetrical between the left and the right at the moment. >
  
  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? >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  
  Literally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage.
  
  Please show evidence that hormone therapy results in changes to height, center of gravity, and Q angle.
  
  Only about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending.
  
  No, medicare is 900 billion, medicaid 734, and that doesnt even touch on aspects such as the VA, or state/local programs. >
  
  Heart size, lung capacity…. >
  
  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 >
  
  What is your definition of "conservative"? >
  
  Someone who is political right leaning. >
  
  That definition doesn't help much. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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? >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  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" >
  
  Are you actually saying there is no data that demonstrates that biological males and females are different? >
  
  No, only that trans women do not retain said advantage. Please focus on the topic at hand and don't get distracted. >
  
  "as much as a year of hrt"
  It's a good thing then no trans woman can compete until such time as per current guidelines. >
  
  The data beyond that timeframe is inconclusive, though. And on a more relevant note, it undercuts your argument that no data exists to support their view. The data is out there. And that’s just what I found with a 5 minute google search….
  My point is, you can’t just say that the other side has no leg to stand on when there’s plenty of data points to examine on both sides.  There’s certainly merit in doing informed debate with anyone on any side. And you may even learn something yourself. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  People can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.