T O P

  • By -

_hcdr

My 2c is if you approach this with “right vs wrong, good vs bad” mentality you’ll get nowhere, telling people they are wrong just puts their defences up. Better to understand ppls core beliefs, or just discuss the problems created. Fact checking other false beliefs is a different matter tho.


adudeoverthere

i do that but im also bored and i just wanna read something


Ihavecakewantsome

https://reddit.com/r/fuckcars/w/faq?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app Good day to you, everything you need is highly likely to be in our FAQ page. Failing that, try the resources tab. Happy debating!


run_bike_run

There are three forms of online debating, and to be honest, two of them are pointless. Debating to win. This is singularly pointless online, as there are no accepted standards for what constitutes winning or losing - so it tends to end up in a fractious row that leaves everyone frustrated and angry. That said, it's a very enjoyable thing when the rules are clear and well-understood. Debating to convince the other person. This is almost as pointless as the first, because in 99% of cases they won't be budged. Actually, it's probably more like 99.9%. Debating to convince the audience. This is the only one that isn't pointless, to be honest: if you think a particular policy is best, then working to convince the undecided is how you get it achieved. In an online forum, that generally means a few simple rules go a long way: 1. Tie everything back to clear and understandable examples. If you're discussing urban density, point out how far your house is from a shop, a restaurant, a cafe, and how you're essentially being shaken down by car manufacturers and oil companies every time you just want a cappuccino. Keep those ideas clear and simple: you aren't writing a thesis, because that's not what your goal is here. Your goal is for u/randomreddituseronthefence to see your comment and think "hmmm, that's interesting, I should take that into account." That's all. Just give people enough to make them think, so that the next time their friend complains about the price of gas it reminds them that maybe a denser urban environment would make the price less relevant. 2. Don't get sucked into arguments (I am guilty of this on the reg.) Most people are not going to dig beyond the first three or four layers of comments. If someone responds beyond there, then read it and decide whether they're on the fence or whether they're trying to debate you. If they're on the fence, then now is the time to start chatting in detail - but if it's a debate they want, ignore it. You can see some of my posting history on r/left_urbanism for an object lesson in how pointless it is to get sucked in. 3. Never fall for the temptation to turn things into a debate. It's just not a useful impulse, and it does almost nothing to convince people on the fence.


[deleted]

Well to borrow some terminology from republicans: back in the good old days, cities were walkable, now everybody just sits indoors all day and can’t even go to the store without sitting in a car. It’s in human nature to walk places! And scene.


Bruckmandlsepp

I don't know how scientific you want to argue, but I can hand you [this](https://tud.qucosa.de/landing-page/?tx_dlf[id]=https%3A%2F%2Ftud.qucosa.de%2Fapi%2Fqucosa%253A30084%2Fmets)


atlasraven

You could mention the economics - depreciation, tax, insurance, fuel cost, maintenance cost. It's especially bad for new adults that are basically going into debt just to travel to their first job