Counter ArgumentsArgument: Violence depicted in video games desensitizes young people to violence and renders them more likely to commit a violent crime.
Counter-Argument: Not only is there no statistical correlation between video gameplay and gun violence, psychological research has found no connection between violent depictions in media and desensitization.
Arguers' Fault: Statistical ignorance and misguided pragmatism.
Violent Video Games Cause Mass ShootingsCounter Arguments2018-06-19 | Argument: Violence depicted in video games desensitizes young people to violence and renders them more likely to commit a violent crime.
Counter-Argument: Not only is there no statistical correlation between video gameplay and gun violence, psychological research has found no connection between violent depictions in media and desensitization.
Arguers' Fault: Statistical ignorance and misguided pragmatism.
Topic: The infamy of the song/music video 'Friday' sung by Rebecca Black. Opinion: The story of this viral video represents the end of the early age of YouTube as well as how much the platform (and the people who use it) have grown since.
The Baby Boomer Generation is the generation after World War II; those born between 1946-1964. Generation Z is the youngest recorded generation; those born between 1996-2012. Apparently, they don't get along.
The Argument: One of the reasons why Baby Boomers usually clash with Generations Y and Z is because they give advice which is considered unhelpful and out-of-touch. The reason for this is because schooling, the job market, and the housing market have dramatically changed since the Boomers were young themselves.
This is a story of an American building - how it was built, why it was lost, what is left of it today, and how each chapter has reflected the country that it stood in.
When a Presidential candidate is asked a question, and they believe that a straightforward answer will be used against them, they may avoid the question instead. The question is, is this a smart strategy? Or can the dodge of the question hurt that candidate just as much?
Ellen DeGeneres, a liberal talk-show host, is friends with George W. Bush, a conservative former-President. Her friendship was criticized, to which she argued in favor of kindness toward those we disagree with.
Approaching a Presidential election, the candidates of a major political party participated in a debate televised on ABC. Some of the questions asked were not given simple, straight answers. Let's examine a few of them to understand exactly how the questions were sidestepped.
This is a general statement, so there are multiple ways of interpreting it. Hence, it can represent multiple different arguments; a literal version - a figurative version - and a contextual version.
The Argument: Biopics practically always depict the biography inaccurately, yet many people who watch biopics assume that they are accurate. It might as well be assumed that they are not accurate because filmmakers will often prioritize a better story over an historically-accurate story.
Social media can be - both - intimate and open. It can feel like a personal space to some, while it seems like a public outlet to others. In May of 2019, a debate was had regarding two political commentators after one accused the other of bullying and abusing them on YouTube.
When somebody decides to leave an interview, they may feel justified. The person who stays may disagree. But whose opinion counts the most when an interview is cut short? This is an argument about the power of public opinion - how it ultimately decides whether or not you should end an interview.
Within the gun control debate, there is a popular analogy which compares firearms to swimming pools. The question is, which side of the debate would benefit the most from this analogy?
The Argument: As a protest tactic, a sex strike can be effective. But in order to succeed, participation among women must be unanimous - men must be the only ones in positions of power - and only actions (not beliefs) can be affected. The only reliable utility of such a strike might be the attention that it draws to a cause.
The Argument: This is a theory, nevertheless, a fair observation. Certain characteristics make certain outcomes more likely. However, many of the characteristics labeled 'Privileges' are conditional and many of them can be earned (if not already inherited). This is an abstract argument and should not be used to justify any assumptions about an individual.
This particular claim is relatively true. It's correct depending on the definition used and the application of the term. There are multiple terms that accurately describe the United States government. And since each term has multiple definitions, they ought to be defined before an argument takes place.
The Counter-Argument: The United States of America is not Christian by law, it does have a Christian culture, and its founding was partly inspired by Christianity.
It's not easy to abandon a conclusion that you've drawn, especially after you've publicly announced that you've made your mind up. But even though there are many reasons not to, there are a few good reasons to allow your mind to change.
Episodes --------------- 01 - How To Change One's Mind: youtu.be/NXjH3duyLKc 02 - What To Make Debates: youtu.be/rOPfVDVB0qI 03 - When To Pick A Fight: youtu.be/9Ux_6hshdWA 04 - Where To Build A Bridge: youtu.be/-YAKJonxnsU 05 - Why We Change Our Minds: NOW PLAYING -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to win somebody over to your way of thinking, it's not enough to be reasonable or persuasive. Goodwill must be established before an agreement can be established.
Episodes --------------- 01 - How To Change One's Mind: youtu.be/NXjH3duyLKc 02 - What To Make Debates: youtu.be/rOPfVDVB0qI 03 - When To Pick A Fight: youtu.be/9Ux_6hshdWA 04 - Where To Build A Bridge: NOW PLAYING 05 - Why We Change Our Minds: youtu.be/je4Y0DAsmHQ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
During a debate, somebody is going to say something that you disagree with. The question is whether or not it is worth contesting the person you disagree with.
Episodes --------------- 01 - How To Change One's Mind: youtu.be/NXjH3duyLKc 02 - What To Make Debates: youtu.be/rOPfVDVB0qI 03 - When To Pick A Fight: NOW PLAYING 04 - Where To Build A Bridge: youtu.be/-YAKJonxnsU 05 - Why We Change Our Minds: youtu.be/je4Y0DAsmHQ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If conducted properly, a debate can be productive and rewarding. See how some of the jurors who set bad examples lose arguments, and observe how the jurors who set good examples are able to establish common ground with their opponents.
Episodes --------------- 01 - How To Change One's Mind: youtu.be/NXjH3duyLKc 02 - What To Make Debates: NOW PLAYING 03 - When To Pick A Fight: youtu.be/9Ux_6hshdWA 04 - Where To Build A Bridge: youtu.be/-YAKJonxnsU 05 - Why We Change Our Minds: youtu.be/je4Y0DAsmHQ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does one juror convince the other eleven to change their verdict after they've made up their minds? In this episode, you'll analyze the protagonist and the antagonist. Learn how Juror #8 made it possible for the jury to reason with him... and how Juror #3 made it impossible.
Episodes --------------- 01 - How To Change One's Mind: NOW PLAYING 02 - What To Make Debates: youtu.be/rOPfVDVB0qI 03 - When To Pick A Fight: youtu.be/9Ux_6hshdWA 04 - Where To Build A Bridge: youtu.be/-YAKJonxnsU 05 - Why We Change Our Minds: youtu.be/je4Y0DAsmHQ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual: Candace Owens Conviction: We do not/should not care about the political opinions of celebrities. Actions: Celebrates, endorses, and promotes a celebrity who shares political opinions with her.
This video is a revision of a previous upload to this channel. The original video was not revised due to copyright complications, but rather because it simply fell short of the channel's typical standards. It is currently unlisted.
Counter-Argument: Not every definition of the term "wet" supports this argument, which is not a scientific argument in the first place. According to chemistry, water is wet.
Arguers' Fault: Semantics and self-selected definitions.
Individual: Dave Rubin Certain Qualities: Asks questions - doesn't express disagreement - doesn't challenge the guest. Conflicting Qualities: Expresses opinions - express agreement - has a political agenda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Setting The Record Straight: youtu.be/tctoYI9SOMI ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Concept: If your religion differs from the law of your country, that law does not apply to you. Advocates: Christian Conservatives The Argument: Allowing certain citizens to abstain from the law negates the purpose of having laws. Advocates' Fault: Scant understanding of civics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This video is an amended/re-uploaded version. Original: youtu.be/jnzX3lgfJhY
A response to a rebuttal was published on this channel. Comment Response: youtu.be/lWsl1OcKB_wSo Youre Saying...?Counter Arguments2018-03-21 | An analysis of why a particular answer to a question is wrong.
Question: So you're saying... [insert rephrasing of argument here]? Answer: Yes. Why It's Typically Wrong: When an argument is rephrased, it's typically not the same argument as a result.
Question: Why abolish the death penalty? Answer: We should hold the state to the same moral standards as us. Why It's Wrong: If held to the same moral standards as its citizens, the state would not be able to imprison anyone either.
Topic: Casting big-name actors. Opinion: Casting an actor primarily because they have a big name is misguided.
Tweet: twitter.com/counterarguing Post: facebook.com/CounterArguments Buy: teespring.com/stores/counterarguments Donate: paypal.me/counterarguments Email: countertheargument@gmail.comLets Not Politicize ThisCounter Arguments2018-01-21 | Argument: Certain issues/events should not be politicized, typically because the time and/or place is not appropriate. Counter-Argument (to ordinary citizens): While it's understandable to find politicizing unpleasant, it's unavoidable when solving a problem in your society. Counter-Argument (to politicians): Nice try. Arguers' Fault: Pessimism, self-interest.
Topic: The revised version of 'Baby, It's Cold Outside.' Opinion: Aside from being gawky and off-putting, it serves as a terrific example of what happens when people put themselves "out there" without putting enough thought into it.
Topic: Arguing over the meaning of an empty or ambiguous statement. Opinion: If a statement doesn't contain enough information, an objective judgment cannot be made, and any disagreement over its actual meaning is not worthy of an argument.
The Concept: Speech that insults or expresses hatred on the basis of a person's identity is hate speech; free speech does not apply. The Argument: Hate speech can only be subjectively determined and free speech applies. Advocates' Faults: Inconsistency and shortsightedness.
Individual: Yvette Felarca Individual's Politics: Anti-Fascist; against violence and silencing people. Individual's Actions: Fascist-like; organizes/commits violence in order to silence people.
Individual: Ann Coulter In One Breath: Being high on marijuana makes you lazy; an unproductive citizen. In Another Breath: I've never smoked pot. Almost none of my friends smoke pot. In The Next Breath: Many of my best friends are potheads.
Individual: Justice Antonin Scalia In One Minute: As long as you know who's giving money to a campaign, we can (and should) be critical of the press. In Another Minute: You might not know who's giving money to a campaign. But the press can find that out for you.
The Practice: Removing the foreskin from a boy's penis without his informed consent. Advocates: Traditionalists The Argument: Without a man's informed consent, circumcision is unjustifiable. Advocates' Faults: Appealing to tradition and medical misunderstandings