Nothing's more formidable than choosing the wrong form of a word to prop up your point.

Ideally, the word that you're looking for is "genuinely considering and addressing the points of others on a case by case basis." The accurate word is "dissenter".

Don't you think that elaborating on your claims (not the same thing as furthering your premise btw) would be a better way to convince "retards"?

You would rather argue about technicalities and loopholes because that is easier than facing the reality of a civilization in decline.

Psssshhhhh everybody knows this reality though.

https://media.giphy.com/media/7dPhaWI5mxmAU/giphy.gif

Are we ****ed?

If you can't flesh out the example that you use to support such an obvious truth, then your example has no substance.

There's a lot of BS out there on every level and it seems like you're arguing that skepticism is a bad thing and that we should just embrace everything that's handed to us without any skepticism because "oh ****, civilization is in decline". I don't trust CNN, I don't trust any politician, I don't trust my family, I don't trust myself, and I don't trust you. You've already thrown so much nonsense my way that I consider researching it worth my time, so if you want to actually convince me of something then you have to put a little bit of legwork in when I think that there are iffy elements to your narrative.

Been that way a while now.

:soccer:

Racist

I'm not trying to be a dick (I don't have to try) but do you mean "not worth my time"? Cos otherwise I don't get it.