Honestly, I leverage LLMs a lot to keep my conversations balanced and intentional. I usually copy-paste my discussions into a ‘Speaker 1:’ and ‘Speaker 2:’ format and ask for a critique on my tone and consistency. I also spend a lot of time thinking through my responses, often drafting a few versions before settling on one. After doing this for a few years, I’ve streamlined my process and can spot weak points pretty quickly.

I even built a GPT-powered game that generates logical fallacy scenarios for me to analyze. Someone once told me, “When I was in my 20s, I studied logical fallacies so I could tell others they were wrong. In my 40s, I study them to know when I’m wrong.” That perspective completely changed how I approach discussions—I start by making sure my own shit is in check first. It’s helped me navigate arguments with people who rely on fallacies while also keeping myself accountable to the same standards.

The fact that you already recognize your own “shit” puts you in a great category for growth. Keep chasing that awareness and practicing, and you’re gonna be unstoppable!

The ultimate debate strategy: Declare yourself the winner, refuse to read the response, then graciously “allow” me the last word you’re not even going to see. Truly a masterclass in performative activism.

You claim to understand “human psychology” and “tactics,” yet you embody the very behaviors you criticize – making sweeping judgments without engaging with counterarguments, creating strawmen, and retreating when challenged. The irony is almost poetic.

Your approach is perfectly calibrated to feel righteous while accomplishing nothing. You drop vague proclamations about wealth distribution with zero nuance or practical solutions, then flee at the first sign of scrutiny. You’re not fighting any system; you’re just performing for an audience of one – yourself.

What’s truly revealing is how you’ve constructed this narrative where you’re the lone truth-teller surrounded by “you people” who “will not stop.” This convenient framing lets you dismiss any criticism as groupthink rather than examining the glaring contradictions in your own positions.

Your self-congratulatory exit is the perfect capstone – simultaneously claiming moral high ground while ensuring you never have to defend it. This isn’t principled advocacy; it’s intellectual cowardice dressed as enlightenment.

But hey, enjoy your righteous solitude. The rest of us will be over here, celebrating actual kindness and generosity rather than shouting self-righteous nonsense into the void.

Thank you for the last word! I had fun with it ;)

Ah yes, the rare and elusive Schrödinger’s Wealth Argument. The rich guy both shouldn’t have the money and yet you never said he shouldn’t have money. Truly a masterclass in mental gymnastics.

Let me make it clear for everyone in the room: “Rich guy gives money he shouldn’t have” followed by “I never said he shouldn’t have money.”.

If your argument is so airtight, why does it fall apart the second someone repeats your own words back to you? You’re so desperate to sound intellectually untouchable that you didn’t even bother making your position internally consistent.

But hey, if you’re the self-appointed gatekeeper of who “should” have money, maybe enlighten us: What’s the magic number? How many dollars past your personal threshold turns someone from acceptable to villainous? Or do you just decide that based on who pisses you off the most in the moment?

Your argument isn’t about justice or fairness, it’s just self-righteous noise wrapped in a superiority complex. You don’t actually want solutions; you just want to act like the smartest guy in the room. Spoiler: You’re not. But by all means, keep preaching from your imaginary throne, Just don’t be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

You’re making a lot of assumptions here. Why do you think his neighbors don’t need the money? How do you know he isn’t also donating to people in real need? And why exactly shouldn’t he have money? Did you personally determine the correct amount he’s allowed to have? Sounds like a lot of certainty for someone who probably doesn’t have all the facts.