I’m unsure. I’m not interested in celebrities. Though I have seen some clips of her show where she has been pretty rude to her guests. Her name also appears in the Epstein files.

Internet users when someone has an opinion:

I have mixed feelings when it comes to keychains. Big keychains give you something to grab which is practical, especially when wearing gloves. But keychains also add more weight and bulk.

Some hospitals use AI to scan patients and find signs of illness before it becomes a problem. I’d say that’s a pretty good use of AI.

You don’t. If their mind is already primed to fall for this nonsense, there isn’t much you can do to help them.

I agree with your point that people should get to decide for themselves. But not if their beliefs are hurting others. Historically, religion has done more harm than good.

Your argument kind of tripped over its own shoelaces there.

Calling someone a liar can be relevant, but only if you prove it with evidence tied to the claim. Otherwise it’s still an ad hominem.

I liked your smug little exit line to dodge pressure. It’s the debate equivalent of throwing a smoke bomb and walking away like you won.

“It’s not an ad hominem”

“My argument can no longer be againt the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally”

That is the literal definition of ad hominem. You just contradicted yourself. Well done.

Your comment quite quickly devolved into an ad hominem. If you had a strong argument against anything I said, you would have used it.

Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist. You realize that even if guns are no longer sold in the U.S., they can still be smuggled in from other countries along with other contraband like drugs and counterfeit cash. That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned. This is what I mean when I say “violent black market”. Guns can also be 3D printed.

I don’t know why you’re bringing up Australia’s gun control as proof that “it’s possible”. Australia doesn’t have anywhere near the same history that the U.S. has with guns. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

Yes. Less, but not zero. You’re still tied into Google’s ecosystem. Brave is basically Chrome with a few privacy settings enabled by default.

FireFox on the other hand is completely independent from Google, and more tweakable.

When I was in school, I was given a maximum time limit to write an essat. I was told beforehand what the topic would be. My teacher told me the best way to prepare was write an essay before the test and then memorize it so I wouldn’t actually have to create anything new during the test.

sigh

The Brave browser is based on Chromium. Using it to get away from chrome does very little. Different browser, same engine.

I don’t disagree with you there

Agreed, but it’s a vicious cycle.

It does cost money to provide healthcare. Funding doesn’t come from thin air. But healthcare in the U.S is also ridiculously expensive. A lot of people can’t afford it without insurance (if your insurance even covers what you need). The system needs fixing.

That’s true, and I can’t argue with you there. Banning guns would solve some problems, but you’d also be opening pandora’s box.

Given the US’ history with guns, banning them would almost certainly fuel a violent black market, making it easier than it already is for criminals to illegally obtain unregistered firearms. And with an estimated 400 million guns already in existence in the US, it would be really difficult to enforce, even if you did manage to pass a law. And loopholes exist like gun shows and private sales.

Regulating but not banning outright would be a slightly better solution, but it wouldn’t be a silver bullet (pun not intended).

Are you saying that committing a mass shooting is legally ambiguous and people think they are likely to get away with it? Because buying a registered firearm in the U.S. Isn’t illegal. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. You’re also kind of implying that people who do shootings are mostly opportunistic, when in reality there are likely other factors at play.

Well said

True. But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist. Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it? (That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.)

That’s not my main issue with gun control, but the way I see it guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes. You want to put a stop to it, you go to the root of the problem. Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.

Yup. If Americans struggling with poor mental health had better access to professional help, crime as a whole would go down. But it’s not the only factor. Things like financial strain and environment also contribute. Crime is a slippery slope. Not a leap.