comment: >
  
  
  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.
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Honestly it does make us just want to shut up and walk away. I'm not the type of person to listen to you if all I do is get insulted. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  Do you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA? >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  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? >
  
  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. >
  
  "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"
  From an article by a sports scientist on the subject. >
  
  That’s a different argument. Again, I’m not trying to attack you too hard here but you’re accusing conservatives of not having reasoned debate. You mocked them for saying trans men have an advantage and yet that’s exactly what your source says. >
  
  I personally meant (and by all means deserve to be called out for the poor wording) it as in "no ban worthy advantage"
  My first language was Korean, I'm Welsh but English is difficult. >
  
  Well I’m glad you admit your mistake that makes you a reasonable debater in my view!
  I’m a big supporter of trans rights, think trans people should be allowed surgery on the NHS, to wear whatever they want and use whatever facilities they want. 
  However like your parents I am a conservative and do view women’s sports in a similar way to the Paralympic’s. The Paralympics have rules preventing able bodied people from competing and I think it’s the right and correct that women’s sport does the same. 
  However I have no problem with your opinion. I certainly wouldn’t fall out with you over it, I think it’s reasonable to prioritise trans representation and just to see it as more competition. 
  Do I seem unreasonable to you? >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  What was the name of the policy you were defending, what was the name of the policy they were supporting? >
  
  I'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. 
  If you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the "be reasonable, look at facts and logic" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.
  This means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies. >
  
  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. >
  
  Economics hasn't been redefined, more variables were added. Like measures of gentrification no longer neglecting to keep track of who moved away as a result of gentrification. If land value go up but the businesses and workers can't pay the rent and leave, that matters.
  Sowell is dogshit and hides behind anecdotes which aren't data. Despite his ideas about "elite" schools in cities before desegregation, there's a reason the desegregated public school model does better globally. 
  
  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.
  
  Like this. Why do blue states and nations have higher health, better economies, lower poverty, lower single parentage, lower homicide, etc etc etc etc etc?
  Because we understand the importance of access to having rights. If country A has taxes to fund universal healthcare and country B has private healthcare but it costs $1000k, in which do you have more rights? >
  
  This is such a conservative View. >
  
  Several major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.
  Perhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions. >
  
  The real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.
  It's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position. >
  
  So I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.
  When I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.
  A lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top.  You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values.  
  As Hume said, "reason is and must always be the slave of the passions".  And many conservatives just have different passions than you. >
  
  Δ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society. >
  
  This feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. "Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) " >
  
  It’s a worthwhile reframing of OP’s initial view, though. The commenter successfully argued conservatives aren’t uninterested in reasoned debate. >
  
  The point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is. >
  
  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 don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason 
  for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said 
  position
  
  Ok so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. 
  If you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. 
  Perhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. 
  In reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. 
  Give me an example of a "convincing reason"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider "convincing" enough. >
  
  This is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.
  On average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.
  I would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person. >
  
  Not just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. 
  In US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this. >
  
  Really, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world. >
  
  Cute post >
  
  This is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.
  I am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides. >
  
  US point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.
  Blew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy” >
  
  Humans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.
  One uses justice and fairness
  The second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.
  Logic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked >
  
  Your last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways >
  
  The 2 moral structures are the non changing base. They may call themselves different names at different times. Conservative, liberal, pious, etc.
  But the second group actually trusts other people they see as authority, or the in group, more than they trust their own reasoning. 
  If the preacher, witchdoctor, president said so then it is just true. And no reason or argument can change their faith in their leader, group as  being in right.
  Today in the US this knoledge is definatly used to propagandize people into the conservative, right side view.
  Untruthfull appeals to reason are used to propagandize to the left.