>>17844409I have a similar problem in myself. First, some things don't matter if you're right or wrong about, like history videos. I understand they're not 100% on the ball, but me getting some wrong version of events of the Prince's crusades or the Crisis of the Third century isn't gonna ruin my life. It's ok to be wrong, just be open to being corrected.
Second, there's a difference between an argument and evidence. The rules of arguments are somewhat related to the rules of evidence: you can win an argument but be wrong. Or even argue about stuff that isn't even quantifiable. Learn about rhetoric, and understand what the tactics is going on, and see if the arguments themselves make sense. I like to think of the opposite case of what someone says to me and see if it makes sense. In OP's case, one point would be "do groups of organisms diversify if more species come in?". The answer is yes, for those mutt species are still new species. A mule is a type of equine. That's one example, but the point is that you should reflect on how true the argument is
Finally, evidence. There should be some supporting information. If it's a point with no examples, it's usually just a works on paper kinda deal, and you can say the opposite without falsehood. For example
>diversity is a meaningful endeavor>in the wild nature, when groups of organisms are combined, new subspecies and even species can arise. but what would happen if two groups of subspecies are separated together? with time the diversity will cease, and new generations will simply consist of homogenized creatures You can see that without evidence or sources, you can pretty much say anything. And on 4chan, we can pretend to be anyone. Hell I can say that I'm a 6'4 gigachad, and you shouldn't eat meat cause it's bad. I can sound convincing, samefag to make it look real, and if you're retarded you might believe me. So, always see if you can get, at least examples
tl;dr try to refute an argument. If you can't, it's gud
