A genie grants you a wish at random: you're guaranteed to win your next argument. Who do you argue with?
-
I think you would have to argue with quite a few people to even get access to trump.
Unless social media counts.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Maybe myself (as an experiment), or the genie about if I should get more wishes or something. Wasting universe-altering magic on convincing one person seems like a waste.
::: spoiler Edit: To be more clear about the self argument:
You can do a lot of funny stuff with logical constructs. If you say "exclusively, [wish] or this statement is false" it's a paradox unless the wish is true. If I argue with someone else, them misunderstanding could count as a victory, but if I'm on both sides that's a bit harder. It's possible I just die or explode or something, but maybe it will actually work, too.
You can get way more sophisticated with that, and probably should if you only get one shot. Godel's incompleteness theorem is a famous example of that kind of tortured self-reference. Magical evaluation of a single arbitrary statement is just way more OP than it may seem at first.
:::
-
Maybe myself (as an experiment), or the genie about if I should get more wishes or something. Wasting universe-altering magic on convincing one person seems like a waste.
::: spoiler Edit: To be more clear about the self argument:
You can do a lot of funny stuff with logical constructs. If you say "exclusively, [wish] or this statement is false" it's a paradox unless the wish is true. If I argue with someone else, them misunderstanding could count as a victory, but if I'm on both sides that's a bit harder. It's possible I just die or explode or something, but maybe it will actually work, too.
You can get way more sophisticated with that, and probably should if you only get one shot. Godel's incompleteness theorem is a famous example of that kind of tortured self-reference. Magical evaluation of a single arbitrary statement is just way more OP than it may seem at first.
:::
Well, you may win the argument against the genie, but it doesn't guarantee that the genie would be granting you more wishes--because maybe they just can't (the universe itself might not let it or something).
Just like some convenience store clerk agreeing that your coupon should be accepted, but the higher-ups won't--and she can't pay for it because she's got even less money than you do.
-
I argue that American Conservatives should all commit suicide with Trump on Truth Social.
That’s something I can stand behind
-
This post did not contain any content.
[Dictator’s name] Orbán/Trump/Xi/etc…
On TV
And the argument is about them not being able to rule the country
-
This post did not contain any content.
What does winning mean in this case? That every single person watching that debate concludes that I was right and the other person was wrong? What about if I'm objectively wrong? Do I still win?
-
I argue that American Conservatives should all commit suicide with Trump on Truth Social.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Horseshoe theory in action here.
Wishing death on 150+ million people because of their political beliefs doesn’t make you righteous. You’ve looped all the way around to becoming the exact thing you claim to oppose.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Frivolous lawsuit against the government or a FAANG company
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
I don't care who I'll be arguing with, but the disagreement will center on the hour and manner of Trump's inevitable demise.
I'm thinking a trauma-induced stroke, caused when JD Vance has a sudden epileptic fit and bites off Donny Jr. in the Lincoln bedroom.
-
Alex O'Connor.
What would you debate him on?
-
Frivolous lawsuit against the government or a FAANG company
Well that's good, humiliate them and get paid
-
Well, you may win the argument against the genie, but it doesn't guarantee that the genie would be granting you more wishes--because maybe they just can't (the universe itself might not let it or something).
Just like some convenience store clerk agreeing that your coupon should be accepted, but the higher-ups won't--and she can't pay for it because she's got even less money than you do.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Even if there's a risk of failure, it seems worth it. No one person is very important, and even then the more powerful a person is the less accessible they are. (Since nobody has mentioned it, Xi Jinping probably has the most power right now, not Trump. The US is stronger, but Trump still has the remnants of a democracy in his way, and is not personally intelligent)
If there's genies, maybe there's a chance arguing with God would work.
-
What does winning mean in this case? That every single person watching that debate concludes that I was right and the other person was wrong? What about if I'm objectively wrong? Do I still win?
Genie gives you the ability to argue perfectly, and no matter how good your opponent is they will not be able to beat you
-
My father, and the argument would be about his political views. Radicalized years ago but the taking heads on Fox.
I miss my dad.
Gosh. I'm sorry. My dad passed five or six years ago. I hope you are able to connect with yours while you have time
-
Even if there's a risk of failure, it seems worth it. No one person is very important, and even then the more powerful a person is the less accessible they are. (Since nobody has mentioned it, Xi Jinping probably has the most power right now, not Trump. The US is stronger, but Trump still has the remnants of a democracy in his way, and is not personally intelligent)
If there's genies, maybe there's a chance arguing with God would work.
I agree~ And thus I would agree that arguing with God ("I can do a better job than you!") might be worth a shot.
-
I agree~ And thus I would agree that arguing with God ("I can do a better job than you!") might be worth a shot.
I'd be careful with the wording - God could agree you'd be better but do nothing about it.
Maybe you could write an open letter calling for people to be altruistic in general and that would count.
-
It's a monkey paw of an outcome.
You win the argument; but it does not change his mind on the subject.
Depends on what you're arguing about. I mean, you could say "that hamburger will kill you" and he'll eat it to spite you.
-
I'd be careful with the wording - God could agree you'd be better but do nothing about it.
Maybe you could write an open letter calling for people to be altruistic in general and that would count.
Yeah, that's a good point. Maybe I can just cut to the chase and outright assert "You did a bad job, hand all your power to me."
-
What does winning mean in this case? That every single person watching that debate concludes that I was right and the other person was wrong? What about if I'm objectively wrong? Do I still win?
You just used your wish arguing with the genie...
-
What would you debate him on?
The resurrection and divinity of the Historical Jesus
