Since my early 20s, I’ve been arguing with people.
I was trying to challenge other people and the status quo. Reading Ayn Rand, listening to Adam Kokesh, and engaging with Stefan Molyneux led me down a radical path. One that I’m still happily on.
My goal was to stress test people’s views: why they believe what they believe. What their arguments are built on. Whether their worldview actually holds up.
After about a decade of this, I’ve come to a conclusion:
Debating others did not help me gain any deeper truths.
The Moment I Realized It
There were a lot of moments, but one stands out.
I was arguing with a coworker. Unfortunately, it escalated because he kept interrupting me. I couldn’t get a full thought out, and I felt myself getting angry.
At one point, I wanted to punch him. And that scared me.
The rage I felt had reached a boiling point. But all these years of debating, I had no better understanding of my debate opponents or the status quo they defended.
What Debates With People Actually Look Like
Most of my debates were in person with work, friends, and acquaintances.
And they all followed the same pattern:
Constant interruptions
No real listening
People defending positions they hadn’t fully thought through
Everyone trying to “win”
To be fair, I’m not innocent in this either. I want to be right. And people know that losing an argument means threatening how they see themselves.
I was challenging the status quo. But its defenders could only produce:
Slogans
Emotional reactions
Post-hoc justifications
Yes, universal healthcare is great, but why is it a moral good, and how do you aim to achieve it? Questions like these were never answered.
What AI Does Better Than People
When I semi-retired from debating, I was worried about a few things:
Was I really correct? My opponents lacked knowledge, especially of esoteric facts that helped formulate my worldview. They could not challenge my worldview because they had no deeper knowledge of it.
What if I’m not listening? I proved that I had a temper and an ego. I could also be equally at fault, creating tensions and conflict that forced situations to escalate.
What if I’m missing key facts? I know a good amount about philosophy, politics, the state, and so on, but my knowledge is limited.
Am I bothering people who just want to live their lives? More than once, I proved too eager to debate with people who didn’t give a shit. Looking back, I can see how annoying I was to bother people with these topics when they had better things to do.
With human interactions, I could not explore these concerns effectively. The process was too frustrating, and I turned to AI for engagement.
Now AI is AI, and there are obvious faults with over-reliance on the tool. The biggest issue is that AI (or more accurately, LLMs) are designed to agree with you.
However, debating ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude proved to be fruitful because AI has some natural advantages over other people and me. For example:
No ego.
No audience.
No interruptions.
No pressure to “win.”
Access to a lot of data points.
But the biggest benefit I received from AI is how it could present arguments better than my past opponents.
The Hard Truth: We Probably Can’t Bridge the Divide
Most people want a thing, pursue it, then create post hoc justifications for that pursuit. They want sex, they have sex, and then justify why sleeping around is a good thing.
AI could actually present the foundation behind these actions, such as highlighting the value of personal freedom or the intellectual history of the Enlightenment. AI helped me see that such desires have a philosophical origin, even if the results are simple hedonism.
And that’s the black pill I took.
Our country is divided because individuals cannot agree on premises, not on policy. We are philosophically opposed more than we are politically. There are foundational truths people cannot agree on, which is why politics is so broken.
Take something like sex.
I believe:
Sex has a purpose
That purpose is tied to creating life
And because of that, it should be disciplined and ordered
Others believe:
Sex is primarily about autonomy and expression
Consent is the main moral boundary
Those are not small differences but different realities.
Thus, AI helped me see this by letting me dig much deeper. I didn’t have to wade through slogans or emotions (on my side or my opponents). I could get to the heart of the manner and that helped me see that I am right.
The philosophical components of individualism produce a logically consistent moral framework. The pursuit of personal responsibility creates the best societies the world has ever seen. The things I believe are correct and foundational, and nothing can compete.
Through the years, my opponents relied on slogans because the foundations of their worldviews are completely incoherent. AI helped me get to the whys and the hows, and that led me to see how hedonism, even when dressed in flowery language, is all that most people have and believe in.
So What Do You Do?
This is where AI actually helps.
Not because it replaces people, but because it removes the worst parts of debate.
If you’re like me, if you get frustrated, if you get emotional, if you care about being right, you need a better outlet.
Here’s what I’d suggest:
1. Use AI to test your beliefs
It will challenge you without attacking you. What I did appreciate was that AI provided great arguments for things such as universal healthcare. I was always skeptical, and still am, but AI was able to address my initial arguments and provide good ones of its own.
This is nearly impossible to receive in an argument or discussion with another person.
2. Stop arguing with people all the time
Most debates aren’t worth it. Keep conversations surface-level unless you trust the person. The reason I suggest this is how most people are.
They may understand policy but not philosophy. Most people are consumed by slogans. Thus, their solutions are always half-baked and never tethered to something greater than their whims.
3. Fix your own weaknesses first
For me, that’s tone and emotional control. I only debate with a few trusted people. I’m not good at arguing anymore. I avoid political discussions because I don’t want to reveal how fragile I am. It’s a character flaw, and I manage it by going to other sources.
I conclude by reminding you that solutions to your life’s problems will not be found by listening to debates. You don’t need a massive understanding of politics or philosophy to know the things you ought to improve about yourself.
Work on those items and don’t drown your mind in endless debates.
Become An Individual
From defining your purpose and mastering discipline to confronting your flaws head-on, Become An Individual is a roadmap for anyone serious about growth. Each post is rooted in real-world experience, timeless philosophy, and a relentless belief in human potential.
If you’re ready to stop drifting and start building the life you were meant to live, join me.
Check the blog posts below, explore the archives, subscribe to new essays, and begin the journey to becoming your best self.
How to hold a conversation: In this post, I want to discuss the best ways to have a conversation, including questions to ask.
Check out more posts at Become An Individual.
Read more of my Substack Posts.
Momma’s Old School Burgers
Momma’s Old School Burgers is about the best diner in purgatory and the people who work there and visit.
Get the latest posts from the best webcomic on the internet. MOSB updates every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Like the story? Started a Ko-Fi with different tiers and benefits. Support Momma’s Old School Burgers today!
Help others embark on their journey of self-improvement by sharing A Tiwyt Creation’s newsletter.
My newsletter is packed with insights on cultivating healthy habits and virtues—perfect for anyone seeking to become the best version of themselves.
Inspiring Stories. Empowered Individuals.
Tired of the cynicism? At A Tiwyt Creation, I aim to inspire individuals to be their best selves through great storytelling, practical advice, and uplifting media.
