I was going to drop this, because I figured if I tried to explain it, you would just continue to lie and say it was incoherent. Then I had an idea. . .why not ask a LLM if what I said was coherent?

So I jumped over to gemini, I gave it the context of our debate, and then asked:

"I then said "Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it. . .despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it. Which is it? These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties.”" Can you explain what I mean there?"

It responded:

"Your response cleverly points out the speaker's contradictory statements. Here's a breakdown of what you're saying:

1. Highlighting the contradiction:

"Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it..." This part emphasizes the shift in the speaker's position. They went from saying nothing can be separated from capitalism to suggesting exceptions exist. 2. Sarcasm and irony:

"...despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it." This uses sarcasm to point out the inconsistency in the speaker's arguments. 3. Mocking the speaker:

"Which is it?" This directly asks the speaker to clarify their stance. 4. Self-deprecating humor (optional):

"These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties”." This part, while optional, adds a layer of humor by playfully suggesting your own limitations in understanding the speaker's inconsistent arguments. It implies that even someone with "limited mental faculties" could recognize the contradiction. Overall, your response effectively exposes the speaker's inconsistency and uses sarcasm and self-deprecation (optional) to make your point in a witty way."

Funny that an AI can easily figure out what I mean, while you insist it's incoherent.

I wonder why that is? lol