Debate tips

...

there's no defence against it within an environment and framework that doesn't respect facts. and you can't just deflect the question because then they'll portray you as running away and hiding from "the awful truth"

Yeah this too. There's nothing more painful than hearing a leftist spitting spaghetti about which -Ism he is and why they're different from Stalin, or Mao, or whatever.

IMO, the plan is to get throwing accusations of being linked to ___ at us force us to renounce and abandon any left-leaning entity, but then continue to compare us to it regardless. Many leftists thought that once they rejected the Soviet Union in all possible ways (some even going as far as supporting hawkish conservatives against it) liberals would allow them back into the conversation again, because oh, those guys are different! But nowadays you still hear about Stalin even if you bring up some mild Social-Democratic reform.

Yes it's shit, but what is there to do? Just give up and renounce every public debate until people forget Stalin existed? Even if Neoliberalism defunds and technocratizes schools to the point where History is entirely wiped out of the curriculum, I can guarantee you that people will still hear about how bad commies were through Television and Pop culture, so it won't happen. So we have to come up with a few strategies.

Then why is Chomsky considered a intellectual giant not a retard?
youtube.com/watch?v=06-XcAiswY4

i won't say it wouldn't be nice to see some smug rightist btfo'd in a debate, but debates don't really accomplish anything material or substantial. it's basically
just seem worthless imo. that's just me though

Here's a debate tip: actually hold a debate sometime, not an internet shouting match.

The arguments you had with family members at the dinner table weren't debate.

Debate has structure and a neutral moderator.

How about next time you host one of your discussions, you make it an actual debate instead of an e-argument by including

1) A topic of debate
2) A preset structure with established speaking time for both sides
3) Established rules (Can facts and evidence be used? Can new evidence be brought up? Etc)
4) A moderator to enforce the rules and structure

A common structure is:

Opening statements -> Rebuttal -> Cross Examination -> Closing Statements

The rules you establish determine what kind of debate it will be. For instance, as I mentioned before, you can ban the use of facts and statistics if you want more of a "values" debate.

He sounds like newfags trying to mental gymnastics the "state capitalism" meme.

Because he doesn't actually propose any socialist alternatives. He supposedly an anarcho-syndicalist but apart from shitting on american imperialism, continentals and marxism he says very little about socialism. In the end he says to vote Clinton.
He's not at all a threat to the hegemony of capital so the liberal ideological apparatus can safely hold him up as a super anti-establishment, anarchist intellectual giant (who'll tell you to vote for Clinton).

Anarcho-syndicalists see the government as a means to an end, to put socialist institutions in place and eventually turn over the means of production to the workers by means of a workers union political revolution.

Every exchange of ideas where one side openly confronts the other is a debate, regardless of how formal it is. Dinner table debate, bar debate, Facebook debate, internet debate, college debate, television debates all count in their own way, and people won't avoid political discourse until the proper setting and the proper rules are set up to the tastes of people who use bowties and take briefcases to school.

I hate this meme so much. The opposite of it is true

I mean, it's not like Chomsky actually gets away with it.

Would this be persuasive to literally anyone that doesn't agree with him already?

The fact is, this isn't what he's known for. Almost nobody really thinks of Chomsky as an advocate for a particular system, politics-wise he's mostly known as a critic of US administration and foreign policy, and for that purpose it's better for him to reject all "actually existing" Socialisms even in principle, to not tie himself to any government and remain theoretically a libertarian/anarchist because then he has nothing to answer for. He can dodge any potential Whatabout-ism that would certainly be thrown at him if he spoke approvingly of left-wing governments.

But when we leave the territory of criticism and start talking about building shit up, we'll definitely find ourselves at least partly echoing the sentiments of previous revolutions, and having its most negative consequences held against us.

No, those aren't debates. Those are arguments. Debate isn't whenever an argument is longer than a couple of minutes or about something more "intellectual" than standard small talk. It's when a discussion of a particular topic has a formalized structure. If there is no structure, there is no debate. It's just an argument, and you should stop putting so much stock in informal arguments.

Arguments can become about rhetorical games and strength of personality. Debate attempts to use structure and rules to make it more a clash of ideas rather than a contest of charisma.

Seriously, no one gives a shit.

Your careless manipulation of words makes George Orwell want to blow his brains out.

...

If you don't give a shit, don't hold these stupid, counter-productive internet shouting matches and then come back and whine that fascists are better rhetorical games than you.

I think the best option is simply not to participate at all, but if you must participate, you ought to at least do it right rather than make yourselves look like weak idiots.

Sorry, let me make it clearer: we give a shit about debating people, we don't give a shit about you actually-ing what a real debate is like, because we can't call a moderator every time we're challenged about Socialism.

I fail to see the point in the exercise. Is getting shouted down and insulted your idea of fun?

Sorry, I can only continue this internet argument when we call a moderator and agree on a format

But we're not having a debate. We're arguing.

Hence, I will no longer partake in this frivolous waste of time.

this. this one of the things that makes being a leftist so difficult. even if what you say is demonstrably, factually correct (e.g. russia did not hold itself to the principles of socialism), people will just dismiss you and judge you crazy or deluded. it's like heresy or blasphemy, but instead of burning you death they record you with their phones and humiliate and insult you on the internet

Yes, Holla Forums is a frivolous waste of time.

Most of us figured that out a while ago.

I mean you're fighting an uphill battle against capitalist propaganda about socialism either way, so yeah most people will not immediately be persuaded. But he presented a pretty solid argument for his position.

yet no one was convinced. this is the horrible irony; the better your argument, the worse its reception

I think "not real Socialism", true as it is, is a bit too simplistic and over-played, and the idea that the Bolsheviks were anti-Socialists, instead of Socialists with unorthodox tactics and theories, is a bit difficult to sell.