That only works if the cashier is mentally retarded. I suggest you go to the local Walmart instead.
Might have better luck since a bunch of retards work there.
You have to find the weak gas station attendants. They’re usually in the lower rent areas.
I don’t know man. In the cities it is mostly Indians and Pakis nowadays.
True.
So, are there any contenders out there? 
Name and pick your poison for debate. Let’s have at it.
A few propositions I would support in a debate:
- Capitalism is bad (you argue that it’s good)
- Life is meaningless/pointless/etc. (you argue that it’s meaningful/purposeful/etc.)
- Morality is subjective (you argue that it’s objective)
My idea is to pick something where I think we disagree, and swap sides for the purpose of an exhibition debate. I’m open to other topics that fit the general mold.
- I support anarcho capitalism which isn’t the same thing to its state run counterpart.
- I argue that fundamentally existence is a chaotic one where I am in acceptance of that.
- I support the notions of moral nihilism and skepticism within my own very cynical perception of the world.
OK, so lets have a formal debate where I support anarcho-captialism and you support keynsian capitalism with central control. The point is to get use both to argue in favor of positions we don’t agree with, and against the position we do agree with.
Why debate like that? That doesn’t make any sense.
Debates are exhibition. They’re more about the art of rhetoric than actually proving a position. Arguing a position you don’t agree with is great practice in that respect.
Moreover, they are beneficial in helping you analyze your own beliefs: if you can’t present the best case against what you believe, how can you be sure that your belief is right? And an exhibition, where your reputation for rhetoric is on the line, forces you to make as good an argument as you can - if you half-ass it, you might protect your blind adherence to the belief, but everyone will see it and you’ll lose the debate.
Such a debate is a personal challenge and a good habit. It makes perfect sense.
I’ll only debate under normal circumstances.
You can do that with somebody else if you like. 
Alright, I challenge you to a debate in which I defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates are reasonable and good, and you argue that they make no sense or you’re somehow above them.
Nice try. No. 
I think laughing man is skurred.
No. I only like debating the conventional way.
You know, actually debating your own views.
Why would I debate opposition point of view to my own? That just does not make any sense to me.
To use your superior debate power to strengthen your actual views. It’s that whole “examined life” thing.
I’ve already examined my opposition or opposers. That’s how I’ve reached my own conclusions already.
I’ve also already examined my own views several times.
Carleas is probably a good debater. See if you can knock down your own views, thrown at you by him through arguing the other side. To learn your opponent you gotta be your opponent. There’s value in the exercise no doubt.
I don’t mind debating Carleas if it is done by conventional method.
Sounds like a good debate to me. I vote for this one.
Carleas’ challenge is a conventional debate and this is something you have a strong view on.