diff --git a/blog/posts/0149-elevating-our-intellectual-discussion.cfg b/blog/posts/0149-elevating-our-intellectual-discussion.cfg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f9605b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/blog/posts/0149-elevating-our-intellectual-discussion.cfg
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+filename = 2021-12-20-elevating-our-intellectual-discussion.html
+title = Elevating our Intellectual Discussion
+description = After being given a rather bad argument for a position I was having difficulty with, I decided that I should give some recommendations on how to have good discussions since this happens to me often.
+created = 2021-12-20
+updated = 2021-12-20
diff --git a/blog/posts/0149-elevating-our-intellectual-discussion.html b/blog/posts/0149-elevating-our-intellectual-discussion.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..134a946
--- /dev/null
+++ b/blog/posts/0149-elevating-our-intellectual-discussion.html
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+<p>I was recently having a conversation at a youth group, and one of the
+questions was on what sin we had a difficult time understanding as a sin. A few
+interesting ideas were brought up, such as suicide (due to lack of culpability
+often resulting from poor mental health) and private criticism. It was during
+this forum that I brought up my difficulty with the notion of intellectual
+property. As anyone who has even been skeptical of the common perception of
+intellectual property will know, the immediate reaction I got, the one I've
+heard over, and over, and over again, is "Somebody worked hard on it!"</p>
+
+<p>If I had wanted to be rude, I could've responded "You don't say? I've
+<em>never</em> heard that argument before!" in a very sarcastic tone - I did
+not - for this is an argument I've heard a million times, and anyone who has
+even lightly discussed the topic has heard it already. In a way, it would seem
+rather naïve to me to assume that someone who is saying they have difficulty
+understanding a certain topic has not already heard the most rudimentary and
+simplistic counter-argument, and therefore assuming I wouldn't already have a
+response for such a simple argument. Rather than encouraging me to change my
+mind, it does the exact opposite which is to make it seem - thought it may be
+untrue - that the other side has no real arguments for their position other than
+the most obvious and simplistic one that I can already rebut. It is this, or
+there are better arguments, but this person is underestimating my
+intelligence - this is not the case, the woman who made this comment to me is
+very nice.</p>
+
+<p>The reason I bring this up isn't (necessarily) to rant about one of my pet
+peeves - giving me stupid arguments that I've already heard a million times -
+but rather to point out that making these kinds of arguments not only annoys me,
+but is also counter-productive. To give an example, this is like someone arguing
+for God's existence saying "But things are complex, and therefore intelligent
+design!" It's so simplistic it sounds stupid, even if you agree with the point
+they're trying to make you can tell it's a poor argument. You're not going to
+convince them by giving the same argument you'd give to a child, unlike children
+adults can understand complex abstract concepts.</p>
+
+<p>As such, perhaps the best first step when we're trying to enter into a
+productive conversation isn't to immediately throw out arguments, but rather to
+ask <em>why</em> they disagree or have difficulty with a given topic. In this
+manner, you neither go over their heads assuming they're credited philosophers,
+nor do you insult their intelligence by assuming they've never even heard the
+most basic arguments before.</p>