I argue with them to change the minds of people reading the argument.
This is why I would labour to keep arguing until either I get last word, or the interlocutor clearly runs out of good arguments. You can't reason with people who never reason themselves into an idea to begin with. But you can convince the readers that the idea is dangerous and to keep away!
To be fair, filibuster has two meanings: this, and the other definition being an individual or small group of individuals, acting indepedently, taking over territory of another state in the name of their country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29?wprov=sfla1
Territorially? Yes, Russia is winning. But politically, economically and socially? Russia already lost. The deaths of thousands of soldiers in the face of Russia's demographic crisis will result fewer labour force, which means lower tax revenue. The Russian economy is in war footing and this is already causing inflation because of heightened government expenditure, and businesses struggling to pay the ever increasing wage demands of civilians at home, who replaced the jobs that would have been filled instead by soldiers from the front. With secondary sanctions, even Chinese banks are reluctant to lend to Russia. The future generations of Russians will be paying for the economic and social consequences of the war in Ukraine. In essence, Russia may be winning territorially, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory with generational consequences.
There were protests and hundred of thousands of young Russian men left the country after Putin announced the first "partial" mobilisation. The recruitment process was also botched and conscripted even the disabled and old.
You do realise that poorer people tend to have more children, especially in developing countries? But even then, these countries are gradually developing and their population growth is also slowing down thanks to more education and growing economy. The more educated people are, the more likely they will think first and plan before having a family. Educated people also have higher social mobility with higher disposable income, and likely try to enjoy more themselves than settle down as quickly as possible. So economic factor is a consideration with the slow down on population growth, but not the way you think it does.
Just because there are outliers, it does not mean the whole trend is represented by it. That is to say, the population growth is already slowing down and may even decline after it plateaus. Education and access to contraception works.
The overall human population growth is actually slowing down and expected to plateau by 2050. Who would have thought that the more educated the population is, the less likely they are going to have tons of babies.
It is now the opposite, actually. Governments now want people to have more babies! But seriously, in this economy? And the future of the earth is not even certain it will be habitable for our descendants! Why bring life into the world that will soon be dead!
It is suspension of disbelief, that somehow, there was only one practical solution to defeat Thanos. And they do not involve Thor going after his head, or Thanos educating the population of the universe about family planning and contraception.
ThanosWasRight is just a meme. Thanos could have gone for the latter option but his faux concern about overpopulation is a cover for his egomania.
Was the 2002 a year of recession? Or is the stock market downturn considered a recession because rich people lost money?