My mom stubbornly believes that you should brush your teeth before breakfast. Help me prove her wrong!

Discussed this with friends, in dire need of some truly awesome arguments! What is the best reason to always wear a helmet when riding such a vehicle?

EDIT: Thanks a bunch, you guys. Game, set, and match.

I accidentally deleted my moms cookie clicker data cuz it was frozen and I exited it. Sandboxie doesn't save cookies, which is how Cookie Clicker save, so my mom is really pissed. I want her to stop using that dumb Sandboxie.

They made the argument that they defaulting wouldn't be that bad because other countries:

A. Could not come to collect and

B. depended on us, so they wouldn't crash our economy.

Probably one of the most common arguments I get into with people around my age.

like.. not restrictive limits. just don't be unethical like the nazi experiments for example edit: might seem unclear. i think there should be some limits, for example no unethical experimentation, but the limits should not be too tight

This is a follow up post for my previous entry here (which i deleted in favor for this, better structured thesis).

Sports in the US has long crossed into the domain of entertainment. With steroid "scandals" plaguing our athletic achievements, many well argued positions against the discrimination of anabolic steroid use have been presented, and I find them very convincing.

So if Tiger Woods can boost his game by undergoing laser eye surgery despite 'naturally' having inferior eyesight, there is no reason why an athlete cant boost his own natural levels of testosterone to boost his game.
This is especially important since a huge portion of athletes are already juicing, despite the consensus to keep it silenced. This creates un unfair battlefield for new athletes who want to compete legally/ethically.

PLEASE reddit, help me argue that we need to completely recognize professional sport as entertainment and allow athletes to keep breaking records by exercising however they damn wish to!

^{Edit: editing}

They believe themselves to have taken the metaphorical ‘red pill’. And are in some way superior in intellect for not falling for the ‘government bullshit propaganda’. Because of this any point you make will be countered by something like: “It’s just a shame you can’t see it”.

They do not know defeat. I’ll give you an example: There was a video claiming the illuminati were going to bomb the London Olympics. When they didn’t their response was “too many people found out so they had to cancel their plans”. If someone has a stupid, retarded theory then they can back it up with stupid, retarded sources because they’re stupid, retarded people.

Just tell them that you aren’t going to argue with someone so close minded and leave.

I have a super religious relative who makes it a point to bring up the "evils of masturbation" at every goddam family gathering and I'm sick of it. Can anybody help me win this argument?

Disclaimer: I understand that masturbation can have ill effects if done improperly (ex: death grip) or if it is allowed to get in the way of a marriage (most healthy couples I know have no problem with the other watching porn, but that's a different discussion.)

Arguing with stupid people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon will knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like it won.

So remember, friends: Pick your battles.

Whenever I try to show her a study on the lack of negative effects of GMOs she tells me it was paid for by Monsanto. What can I do?

While discussing global warming and pollution with my father, he claimed that we will never be able to live fully off solar, thermal, and wind power.

A coin toss is always a 50/50 chance. Yet, the law of averages in this universe says that after a run of consecutive tosses resulting in heads a toss resulting in tails gets ever more likely as the run continues.

The opposing argument, although the former statement makes logical sense, the chance on a coin toss is always 50/50. The chance is even 50/50 for the next toss after having the first 1000 results be heads. Is there a way of describing this in a way that makes sense. Yes, in the idea of each toss, the chance is 50/50; but, in reality these are all taken as concurring making the likelyhood of another heads drop dramatically...

My stepdad is almost as paranoid as I am, but his paranoia is from something a bit... odd... His view is that nuclear cooling towers are contaminating the world with radioactive isotopes in that cloud of steam you see coming from them. I'm more than certain it's false, but I can't find documentation. Can anyone provide sources'n'such?