Granted, its a very simple analogy but it needs to be simple because it can be used to counter an equal simple false equivalency in conversation. My honest opi

Granted, its a very simple analogy but it needs to be simple because it can be used to counter an equal simple false equivalency in conversation. My honest opinion is that we've unfortunately divided ourselves down the middle and we've picked causes and policies like we were picking players in dodgeball and you can only be on one team. I think it so happens either by chance or by some kind of underlying tendency that one side tends to be more correct or at least more progressive (which tends to be more correct in the long run) than the other. I know plenty of people who correctly (I think and I think the data supports) acknowledge climate change is real and largely man-made but could no more discuss the actual causes or ramification than your average climate denier. I want to be able to have honest, nuanced conversations with people but they typically end defensively and quickly (which is often the result of someone I agree with who can't help but be snarky and counterproductive) and I want to find quick and effective counters to some of these argument killers.