Laughing about a true comment is now considered the peak of discourse? Come on now.

Grow up ok? Even I refuse to say everything on CNN is useless and fake. I don't trust them because of all the fake news stories they put out but that doesn't mean I can just carte blanche right off every article or news segment without actually addressing the substance of the content. Fox news is the same. Even if they have made mistakes, that doesn't allow you to dismiss the entire network.

I'd rather read the article by the denier and then the rebuttal than never hear the argument at all. This is because, if you silence people you disagree with, all you have done is cause ignorance which means in the future they can trick even more people into thinking the Holocaust never happened. If you put it in the sunshine, the lies are disinfected by the truth and everybody is better off.

Being dismissive is pretty intellectually dishonest. How would you know if there is an opposing viewpoint if you never let the opposing side talk? People chide Dave Rubin constantly because he gives opposing viewpoints a platform on Youtube (gasp). Guess what? A lot of these people have very good arguments. Most of them disagree with Dave substantially.

You left out the option for intentional ignorance.

False. Most people on Twitter for instance only see tweets from their bubble. It's simple, easy, organic, and natural to simply avoid input and influence from those you disagree with. If you are getting nazis (actual nazis) engaging with you it's because you either engaged with them first or talked about them. In addition, blocking is simple on these platforms. Don't want to see a voice? Block them and move on. The outrage culture IS the problem.

Voters are nuanced. Politicians can't afford to be anymore because of the vast extremism that is also part of the outrage culture. If you go against the extremists on either side, you face a disproportionate backlash. Now the correct response to backlash from extremists it to ignore it but Politicians are generally born without a backbone so they will not ignore it and instead cave to pressure to become more extreme.

OK so you literally think people abort intended pregnancies? Wow. Also, you fail to grasp the intent of my argument and focus on semantics. The unborn child is innocent. A serial murderer is not. That's the difference.

The difference is not in the potential but in the intentional taking of human life. If you leave a fetus alone, it will grow into a newborn baby a vast majority of the time.

Abortion is the taking of a human life for no valid reason. It is murder.

I'd be cool with jailing people who commit abortions for life. I would sleep well with that in fact. You can't compare murder rates between states because the populations are different. That's not how statistics works. You have to look at the SAME population over time when the law changed. Do that and get back to me. By the way, I don't care about the death penalty at all so have fun.

Loot boxes may be addictive but significantly less than drugs. However, your fallacy is when you say "without the active participation of a guardian/parent". How do you think these minors get money? It doesn't grow on trees and most are too young to have a job. Their parents know full well what they are doing. Also, it's not even the kids money.

Actually Live Action does advocate for easier adoption rules. Welfare is not the only solution to the abortion problem. If people didn't think they could just correct their "mistake" by taking a human life, they would be a lot more careful in the first place. There is absolutely a push for correct and consistent contraception use. However the largest fallacy you make is that you assume all unintended pregnancies should be terminated simply because they are unintended. You are leaving out the innocent human life completely from the argument. It makes zero appearances in your entire argument. There is no valid reason for purposefully destroying a human life.

I haven't found a single libertarian to propose that as a solution for anything so I'm going with the strawman fallacy here.

638,169 human lives were murdered in 2015 and it was completely legal but carry on.

You're fallacy is you didn't baseline the x axis of the graph to start at zero. Instead you zoomed into the top 1% of the graph to exaggerate the difference. Even with most of the failure, the failure rate as a percentage is only slightly worse. The percent difference in this case is useless information.