Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
AI sucks at arguing.
it only presents smearing of sources and other brain dead progressive tactics of locutory failure.
RFK claims about vaccines fact checked by Senator Dr Bill Cassidy.
- Thread starter QP!
- Start date
it only presents smearing of sources and other brain dead progressive tactics of locutory failure.
QP!
Verified User
Whether you were a young person having an adult help you look up information in an encyclopedia for your school planets project or you use AI to do it, no kid is smarter not using the information aggregation sources (encyclopedia, AI, google search, text books) and just doing it on their own from their gut.
That you think access to aggregated information does not help make people smarter shows how stupid you are.
People need aggragated data. We do not have Dr's, scientists, engineers or mechanics, etc without that aggregated information.
QP!
Verified User
Ok. so the statement about hygiene and sewers is correct on how they helped.
But that does not stop the lie separately tells...
It is NOT an error of omission for Kennedy to point out 'hygiene helped' and it is a lie when Kennedy says THE STUDY PROVED VACCINES PLAYED NO ROLE in the improvements.
the two studies, as Senator Dr Cassidy reads on the air specifically states that "...the reductions in vaccine are impressive..." as it goes on to cite the very substantial role vaccines have played.
So that is not an error of omission and to say so is a lie or you not understanding the word you said. Kennedy could have solely mentioned hygiene and been correct but make the error of omission by not giving vaccines some credit too. Instead Kennedy mentions hygiene and then says the studies show the opposite of what they do no vaccine efficacy.
That is a lie. A deliberate and brazen lie where you hope the person will not take the time to read the study.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
Still crying? You have really been affected by this.
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
The message contains several claims about children, literacy, and AI. Here’s what the evidence actually shows.
Claim 1: “Children are better off not using AI at all.”
Verdict: Not supported by evidence.
Research shows mixed outcomes, not a blanket harm.
What studies say
- UNESCO (2023): AI can support learning if used responsibly and with teacher guidance. It warns against unsupervised use but does not recommend banning AI.
Source: UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education. - OECD (2024): AI tools can improve writing, reading comprehension, and personalized learning, but require digital literacy instruction.
Source: OECD Education Directorate. - Stanford HAI (2024): AI can help students brainstorm, revise writing, and learn concepts, but over‑reliance can reduce critical‑thinking practice.
Source: Stanford Human‑Centered AI.
Conclusion: AI is neither universally harmful nor universally beneficial. Outcomes depend on how it’s used.
Claim 2: “Our children are only getting stupider due to the rise of technology.”
Verdict: False / oversimplified.
What the data shows
- NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress): U.S. reading and math scores have declined since 2020, but the primary causes identified are COVID‑19 disruptions, absenteeism, and lack of instructional time—not “technology.”
Source: NAEP 2022–2024 reports. - Pew Research Center: Technology use correlates with both positive and negative outcomes depending on context.
Source: Pew, Teens, Tech & Mental Health. - American Psychological Association: No evidence that technology makes children “stupider.” Effects depend on content, supervision, and balance.
Source: APA, Children & Digital Media.
Claim 3: “Our literacy rates are trash.”
Verdict: Partially true but misleading.
What the data shows
- U.S. literacy rates are lower than many OECD countries, but not “trash.”
- National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): About 79% of U.S. adults have “intermediate or better” literacy.
- Child literacy has declined since the pandemic, but again, the causes are complex.
Conclusion: Literacy challenges exist, but blaming “technology” alone is inaccurate.
Claim 4: “Prompting AI is not education.”
Verdict: Partially true.
Prompting AI is not a substitute for education, but it can be part of learning.
Sources
- Harvard Graduate School of Education (2024): AI prompting can teach metacognition and revision skills when paired with instruction.
- MIT Teaching Systems Lab: Students who use AI with teacher guidance improve writing quality.
- UNESCO: AI should support, not replace, learning.
The message uses highly emotional, hostile, and politically charged language. Here are the indicators:
1. Dehumanizing language
Words like “idiot,” “enemy of humanity,” and “bat sh*t crazy” are insults, not arguments.
2. Absolutist claims
Statements like “children are only getting stupider” ignore nuance and contradict data.
3. Moral panic framing
The message uses a classic “technology is destroying society” narrative, which research shows is often exaggerated.
4. Political tribalism
Labeling people as “forces for dumbing down humanity” is a rhetorical tactic, not evidence.
5. No sources or data
The message relies entirely on emotion and assertion.
- AI is not inherently harmful to children.
- Literacy issues are real, but caused by multiple factors—not simply technology.
- AI prompting is not education by itself, but can support learning.
- The message you shared is heavily biased, uses insults instead of evidence, and does not align with research.
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
Let’s break this down clearly and calmly. The message you shared makes two claims:
- “AI sucks at arguing.”
- “It only uses smearing of sources and progressive tactics.”
These are opinions, not facts — but we can fact‑check the underlying ideas and analyze the bias in the statement.
Below is a clean, sourced breakdown.
FACT‑CHECK
Claim 1: “AI sucks at arguing.”
Verdict: Partially true depending on what “arguing” means.
What research shows
AI systems are not designed to “argue” like humans. They:
- do not have personal beliefs
- do not hold political positions
- cannot take sides
- cannot form original opinions
Instead, they generate responses based on patterns in data and safety rules.
Sources
- Stanford HAI: Large language models “simulate reasoning but do not possess beliefs.”
- MIT CSAIL: LLMs “cannot engage in adversarial argumentation the way humans do.”
- OpenAI & Microsoft research: AI is constrained to avoid political persuasion and personal opinions.
So yes — AI is not built for debate in the human sense.
But that’s by design, not because it “fails.”
Claim 2: “AI only smears sources and uses progressive tactics.”
Verdict: False.
This claim misunderstands how AI works.
What the evidence shows
AI systems:
- do not choose political sides
- do not “smear” sources
- do not use “progressive tactics”
- follow safety rules that restrict political persuasion
- cite mainstream, verifiable sources when asked for facts
Sources
- Microsoft Responsible AI Standard
- OpenAI Safety Guidelines
- Stanford Internet Observatory: LLMs avoid political persuasion by design
- Pew Research Center: AI models “reflect training data and safety constraints, not political ideology”
If an AI avoids certain claims, it’s because:
- the claim is unverified
- the claim is misinformation
- the claim violates safety rules
- the claim is politically sensitive
That is not a political tactic — it’s a safety requirement.
BIAS CHECK
The message you shared contains several clear indicators of political bias and emotional framing.
1. Absolutist language
- “AI sucks”
- “only presents smearing”
- “brain dead progressive tactics”
These are not factual statements — they’re emotional judgments.
2. Political labeling
Calling something “progressive tactics” is a way to frame the AI as aligned with a political ideology, even though AI systems are explicitly designed to avoid political alignment.
3. Ad hominem
The message attacks motives (“enemy of humanity”) rather than addressing evidence.
4. No sources
The message provides zero evidence to support its claims.
5. Projection of intent
AI does not have intent, motives, or ideology.
Assigning political motives to it is a form of anthropomorphism.
BOTTOM LINE
- AI is not built to argue like a human — that’s intentional.
- AI does not use “progressive tactics” or “smear sources.”
- The message you shared is opinion, not fact.
- It contains strong political bias, emotional language, and no evidence.
- Research shows AI systems follow safety rules, not political ideology.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
these are all unproven assertions.Let’s break this down clearly and calmly. The message you shared makes two claims:
- “AI sucks at arguing.”
- “It only uses smearing of sources and progressive tactics.”
These are opinions, not facts — but we can fact‑check the underlying ideas and analyze the bias in the statement.
Below is a clean, sourced breakdown.
Claim 1: “AI sucks at arguing.”
Verdict: Partially true depending on what “arguing” means.
What research shows
AI systems are not designed to “argue” like humans. They:
- do not have personal beliefs
- do not hold political positions
- cannot take sides
- cannot form original opinions
Instead, they generate responses based on patterns in data and safety rules.
Sources
- Stanford HAI: Large language models “simulate reasoning but do not possess beliefs.”
- MIT CSAIL: LLMs “cannot engage in adversarial argumentation the way humans do.”
- OpenAI & Microsoft research: AI is constrained to avoid political persuasion and personal opinions.
So yes — AI is not built for debate in the human sense.
But that’s by design, not because it “fails.”
Claim 2: “AI only smears sources and uses progressive tactics.”
Verdict: False.
This claim misunderstands how AI works.
What the evidence shows
AI systems:
- do not choose political sides
- do not “smear” sources
- do not use “progressive tactics”
- follow safety rules that restrict political persuasion
- cite mainstream, verifiable sources when asked for facts
Sources
- Microsoft Responsible AI Standard
- OpenAI Safety Guidelines
- Stanford Internet Observatory: LLMs avoid political persuasion by design
- Pew Research Center: AI models “reflect training data and safety constraints, not political ideology”
If an AI avoids certain claims, it’s because:
- the claim is unverified
- the claim is misinformation
- the claim violates safety rules
- the claim is politically sensitive
That is not a political tactic — it’s a safety requirement.
The message you shared contains several clear indicators of political bias and emotional framing.
1. Absolutist language
- “AI sucks”
- “only presents smearing”
- “brain dead progressive tactics”
These are not factual statements — they’re emotional judgments.
2. Political labeling
Calling something “progressive tactics” is a way to frame the AI as aligned with a political ideology, even though AI systems are explicitly designed to avoid political alignment.
3. Ad hominem
The message attacks motives (“enemy of humanity”) rather than addressing evidence.
4. No sources
The message provides zero evidence to support its claims.
5. Projection of intent
AI does not have intent, motives, or ideology.
Assigning political motives to it is a form of anthropomorphism.
- AI is not built to argue like a human — that’s intentional.
- AI does not use “progressive tactics” or “smear sources.”
- The message you shared is opinion, not fact.
- It contains strong political bias, emotional language, and no evidence.
- Research shows AI systems follow safety rules, not political ideology.
you Dems are so stupid you cannot tell that your AI results are also stupid.
QP!
Verified User
Children NEED data aggregating sources whether it be an encyclopedia or a text book or other, you simply are not going to tell them to 'learn about things' and not give them anything.
You are stupid to keep saying they do not as if they can just imagine it.
And while i would agree there is an age and stage for introducing any of these sources and young kids should not first use the internet or AI that is NOT because they are not good.
In terms of the BEST information aggregators that can help a person learn something you have:
- text book/encyclopedia
- internet general
- google search
- AI
If tomorrow you get called to go help a family lay a hard wood floor or do an oil change or any other thing you have very little or no experience in the BEST thing you can do is use AI or google search to quickly access some Do It Yourself videos to get a baseline familiarization of what you are about to jump in to.
That AI gave that video and 25 others i can scan and you keep claiming 'that is of no help' just shows how stupid you are.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
You’re calling these unproven assertions, but the points I listed aren’t personal opinions, they come directly from published research and the documented design rules of modern AI systems. Whether someone likes or dislikes AI doesn’t change how the technology actually works.
If you think the information is wrong, the productive way forward is to point to a specific claim and show evidence that contradicts it. Just saying your AI results are stupid doesn’t address any of the facts, and it doesn’t move the discussion anywhere.
If the goal is an actual conversation, I’m happy to go point‑by‑point with sources. If the goal is just to trade insults, that’s not really a debate, it’s just noise.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
AI is failing because it's stupid and gay.
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
When you jump straight to name‑calling, you’re basically confirming my point. I laid out sources and explanations. You responded with an insult and a YouTube link. That’s not an argument, it’s just noise.
If you want to talk about how AI works, I’m here for that. If all you’ve got is stupid and gay, then you’re not debating, you’re just reacting.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
AI is dumbing down humanity and it lies and is not worth a hill of beans.
and you eat Mexican diarrhea.
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
I’m stepping out of this conversation. You’ve moved past the topic and into random insults, and that’s not something I’m interested in.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
QP!
Verified User
When younger i actually bought a DIY book and installed my own hard wood floors in my first home, as i was handy and had experience installing kitchens.
The DIY books were immensely educational and helped me quickly learn and that you keep saying they would not help shows how stupid you are.
The AI video's sorted, like the one i just posted above are even MORE helpful for such DIY tasks and that you keep saying they are not and the person is better just winging it, shows how stupid you are.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
QP!
Verified User
Hey idiot.
Going into a store and picking from the 5 DIY books on hard wood flooring...
OR
... using AI which will instantly give you access to the same 5 books but also give you DIY videos
Can in NO WAY be argued as 'helpful to learning if you go to the book store' but 'not helpful to learning if you get it from AI and internet'.
You have to be beyond stupid to say you can only learn if you get the book from a store but the same book got via AI and the internet cannot help you learn.
You need to be smarter.
Last edited: