A brain is either geared towards or away from argumentation.

This could be in Personal or People subforum instead but in the long run this subforum (DebateArt.com) will get the thread maximal visibility.

I am not speaking from a professional perspective here, it is a private theory I hold but I do think I can challenge pros at this dichotomy once they realise guys like myself exist. (It is a dichotimy, no third option, I have become quite certain)

Autism is definitely part of it but that label (diagnosis) includes many who do not like to argue at all. 

There seems to be a subset of primarily autistic and/or schizophrenic types of people who are geared towards argumentation. These people are rare even on websites like this. They actually thrive in debates and enjoy arguing itself.

All our young lives we get labelled an obnoxious, unruly, irritating etc guy/girl, branded toxic, pushed to conform, be timid and tame. Even many who will try to love us will fail to and accidentally emotionally abuse us by trying to 'guide' us to kill off a vital part of our core self.

The issue is these people do not mean harm by their wiring. They actually mean to find truth or alternatively to help a person bite back with backbone and confidence and both help the other grow and gain perspective on his/her side of the argument.

We make enemies constantly the moment the 'real us' shows and those that are similar to us have often been hardened and traumatised to the point that they are cold and jaded.

The others do not have an in-between aspect to them, if I am correct on my theory they are not ever in between. This is not a hypothesis, it is a theory I formed with multiple people I met online and offline as data points. People are either geared towards agreement or towards argumentation (which is mistaken as wanting to always disagree).

This tendency to argue is mistaken as rebellion for the sake of rebellion. I do not mean that trait or attitude. I mean people who when their new colleague says the religion he/she belongs to, want to immediately explore it, tear it to pieces and be fascinated or fascinate the other, either way. This is consistently received as toxic, rude and/or malicious whereas the natural arguer instinctively means it as a form of connection that they feel cannot be achieved by ignoring the religion in-depth and pushing it aside.

This can be anything from characters in TV shows to the best car brand. We argue by nature and show love and care by it even, which leads to natural nonarguers bullying us, shaming us or other methods of emotional abuse and they see us as the aggressor consistently.

I use debate as a way to think through problems and get other perspectives, primarily 

Does it affect you irl socially?

I was impressed and fascinated by your theory of Agent Smith being The One because it's an interesting concept that has never really been explored before. 

My own belief is that Darth Vader is The Chosen One of Star Wars. Even if casual non-fans disagree. 

Very rarely do people ever consider the idea that The Savior or The Messiah could be the bad guy. It takes a truly creative mind to conceive of the connection between Smith and The One. But what's more impressive is that the theory is plausible. 

Who were your role models that got you into recreational debate?

None I was into debating so young you wouldn't believe it at first. I was born to argue.

Debating is a very great way to make friends. Just argue for their views and they will like you. The main problem with autistic people is that most cant really figure out their own goals there. If your goal is to keep a friend, then never debate against him, but always fight on his side. Even pretend if you have to. Even lie. Even stay silent and dont ever correct him. Also, some sharing is nice too. You can even win people over by buying them a beer, or making some jokes. Literally, be generous in terms of money, borrow when they ask, help them out, offer stuff, and soon you will have countless new friends. Focus on what you want, not on telling truth all the time now. Sure, maybe my friend is ugly or annoying, but do I really want to say such truth there? I prefer friend over truth, usually.

And I tell you now, there are actually only two things in this world: things you want and the other things. Always focus on what you want, because thats literally what you are. If you lose what you want, nothing else even has value then. All focus on wants.

Do you debate for sport? Perhaps you thrive on competition in an intellectual environment

I mean if I did I'd keep it secret if I hit an irl championship or something.

If you mean here, yes it is literally a need. While off here I used other areas of Internet to flex it because I began to argue too hard with people irl and annoyed them. It is a literal need. Literally. I need it more than exercise, I am not exaggerating it. If I don't argue for 3-4 days at all, I begin to burst with the urge to the point my heart races. It maybe is an addiction but I don't think so. Imagine the urge to argue is so strong you have to battle yourself and pray to avoid arguing over something as simple as how to cook some chicken, exploring every possibility. That is how it gets for me, every hour if I go cold turkey on it (I could have said 'cook turkey' for a pun but I am being serious.)

I know what you are saying, I do understand aquaintences/neighbours that require the fake mask. I don't even know why Christianity says lying is a sin, people like me need to semi-regularly lie and metaphorically bite our tongue to survive and not be cancelled or hated.

I try to avoid people I need to lie around or be fake with but some can't be entirely avoided especially and ironically if I am to be a good Christian to said people.

The Bible said thou shalt not bear false witness but that is not entirely the case. It also implies refusing to snitch or tell whole truth is a sin too. This means in that sense I hold back myntruenoponiooks seminoften, enough yo be true to 'everyone is a sinner'. I would rather be fake and a decent human than ruthlessly blunt and tell most what is really on my mind.

If someone tells me they have a hobby, I want to know a lot about it. So I instinctively interrogate them. I probe.

This is not even arguing, many take this as hostile. Then as I evolve the conversation I challenge with 'why's and 'how about's, I come at them arguing to let them fight back and listen.

This is how I instinctively was built by God in my brain to show love and it made me countless enemies and left me alone. I learned how to refine it over time.

I noticed often that proving people wrong makes them angry. Even disagreeing with them makes them angry often. Even asking plenty of why and how makes them angry. The problem is that no one wants to be friends with someone they disagree with too much. The greater the disagreement, the worse it gets then. So yes, you literally have to at least stay silent if not just lie. I dont think its possible not to lie. I know it sounds silly, but friendships arent based on any truth, but simply on being what the other person wants in a friend. The Bible does say "do to others..." verse, and if you want for others to accept you, you must accept them. If you want for others to behave like you want, you first have to behave like they want. If you want for others to like you, you must like them as they are now. Most people arent into debating really that much, and you cant go against their wishes there. You must be what they want you to be, and then they will actually accept you. This maybe is deception and deceiving, but truth doesnt make many friends.

I don't want many friends. This thread wasn't made for that but I accept it has evolved that way.

I think I am a rare enigma that actually enjoys arguing. I get actual pleasure when doing it as long as it is respectful.

There are people who love to argue opposite views, they are just harder to find among general population.

And when they exist are often too toxic as a person to be my friend and/or too low intellect to stimulate me.

It is what it is. I am a sheep, Christ is the shepherd. I just wonder why he wired me as a mountain goat.

You misspelled my name again, it's not "Sky", it's "Side", as in "Sidewalker was the Chosen One".

I don't think it's really that rare, I have known a lot of people who love to argue, contrarians who will argue anything, on any side, some folks prefer argument over discussion, the adversarial stance suits them. 

My father was one, you say the sky is blue and he'd argue that it's red.  To him it was about competing, to his way of thinking, every conversation has a winner and a loser. 

The last part I don't relate to. If I lose the argument I feel good too if we mean irl while bonding. The other typically feels unhappy though. I seem to drain most.

I respect how clever this reply is. 

That was an incredible pun I do have to admit

Arguing is as arguing does.

A trite comment perhaps, but in this instance I think sums up the inevitable differences that will arise in 8 billion individually programmed organic units.

Even if there were a perfect programme, would all units be perfectly programmable?

Skywalker sounds more uplifting. You cannot be sidestepped.

Of all the posts to reply to, you chose that.

Hello Adaptable. How are you doing today?