With the recent increase in popularity of internet ideological debates...

With the recent increase in popularity of internet ideological debates, it is crucial for us to have a thread on the matter.
It is common knowledge among us that the modern debate format, the general level of information on socialism and the people who watch and participate in on-line debates are highly biased against communists. But yet, we are not in a position to cross our arms and whine about injustice, because debates are getting popular and we will be inevitably dragged to them and we won't be prepared.
This thread is dedicated not only to discussion on how socialists should portray themselves in a debate be it live or text but also for debating strategies, categorization and sharing of on-line debates.

They are just going to drag Muke into the stage and embarrass us all again.

Don't say it wasn't real socialism. Ever.

this

we should make sure Muke never debates with righties because we know he would just crumble

leave him to debating with other leftists and completely destroying the cause of liberal leninist leftcom libertarianism for good

One of the main problems with muke and many other socialists in debates for that matter is that we are usually talking to the participants. We need to drop this shit completelly, people making those debates sdon't give a shit about our ideology or anything we say, they just want a punching bag to give them credit with their audience.
What we need to do is make them look bad in front of their audience.
There are tons of ways to acomplish this and most of them don't involve giving long explanations disprooving every single bullshit your oponent says which is the usual leftist aproach

I agree with user in this thread about being stoic, not letting change the subject, keep forcing them to make a real argument etc. like AA vs Jack

Also this.

Anonymous debates, if you have to be a fag showing your face to get an audience you're an attention-seeking fuck that needs gratification instead of defending your ideas as is in a vacuum. In addition without a history of identity and imbecility you can't be attacked on an ad-hominem basis.

continuing my post since i accidentally pressed post.

Part of te reason why could hold his ground in the debate was because he is a hoxhaist and right wingers are not used to this.
If we break our oponent's expectations their sophistry will be less efective and we can tackle them with some sophistry of our own.

Is the worst ofender because it's exactly what they want and are used to debating. Even if it wasn't real socialism there are other ways of adressing it and turn the tables making them say it wasn't real socialism .this can be done by pointing the good factors of past socialist experiences or paralel examples like cuba compared to other caribean islands that are absolute hellholes.

Another interesting aproach i've been thinking of recently is not caring about the debate to the maximum extent possible and using the topics as a means to expose socialist ideology without necessarily adressing them or falling in to loaded topics. this has to be done in a honest fashion, making it obvious we don't give two shits about the topics, the participants or the debate in general, you'd be surprised how easilly people shill for ballsyness

This is important, but we have to remeber jack was many levels above AA, and AA was particularly retarded for setting a debate on the LTV having read capital only once, if he ever read it at all.

If you look handsome aren't a twink, you should show your face. If your opponent is uglier than you, he's gonna have a hard time calling you a soyboy beta cuck.

this can be especially good since, if part of the audience gets convinced and decides to research socialism they won't search for your youtube channel or your specific content and all positive conclusions will be personal.
Induced personal conclusions are usually stronger since they make people feel smart and not being convinced by someone else.