Hey Holla Forums, I'm debating Sargon of Akkad aka Sarcuck of Mossad aka Carl Benjamin. The topic is: Nationalism...

When you're talking about millions of people, you have to look at the average. If you tested each individual extensively it would be less of a problem, but we don't.

youtube.com/user/BlitheringGenius/videos
This dude, Blithering Genius, you'll find him an excellent resource for your arguments.

thealternativehypothesis.org/

The sections "race realism" and "history" of this site could prove useful to you.

Why? The post makes a good meta-point. People come to arguments with two things: facts and normative claims. That gives you two separate areas you can attack him under. Ignoring whatever normative ethical theory he is putting forth (in this case, deontology) means you miss a big part of his argument. Especially considering liberal types are well aware of the facts, but aren't swayed by them, because their decisions are usually based on normative claims.

You best be prepared for this.

Dismissing ethical claims with pleb-tier counters (that for Holla Forumslacks that haven't done philosophy is a regular occurrence) will make you not only lose the argument, but be totally unpersuasive to anyone else.

I am going to take it into consideration of course.
My disagreement is with consequentialism and the rejection of dentological ethics.

I'm going off my old history book and my teachers lectures. The book is give me liberty, third edition, by Eric phoner

Metapedia articles on Race and crime / Race and intelligence are actually surprisingly well-sourced:

en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime

en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Load up a note card with sourced stats on race, intelligence, education, etc.

Here's one source examining SAT scores and race: cshe.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/publications/docs/ROPS.CSHE_.10.15.Geiser.RaceSAT.10.26.2015.pdf

Point out that intelligence is >75% genetic: sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school and that intelligence is highly indicative of real-life success.
Point out that this has been proven in a series of studies including twin studies. nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html

You'll need to keep Sargon on point and press him when he tries to squirm out of the simple facts of the matter, as his liberal sensibilities predispose him to do.

You may already be planning on doing this, but I would suggest focusing on one simple argument. Point out that we know that we can select dogs for various traits. Different coats, different behavioral patterns, different body types, and most importantly different levels of intelligence. We have known this to be true for thousands of years and have artificially selected dogs for all these traits and more over hundreds of years: We have bred both the border collie, a highly intelligent and affectionate dog, and the rottweiler, a fairly stupid and violent dog; both are dogs, but we can say that the breeds are different. To believe that genetics do not have an effect on intelligence is to deny the empirical evidence; to believe that the races are not also subject to genetically determined IQ distributions that cannot be erased by education is to believe that evolution happens for all animals except for humans - that in our hundreds of thousands of years of geographical separation we have deviated in terms of skin color and skull structure etc. but that our evolution somehow magically stopped at our heads, which is profoundly stupid.

I'm a bit tired so I hope that's clear, but if I'm understanding your debate topic in terms of education v. genetics properly, then I think this is the most persuasive way to frame your argument. He has to explain why he thinks that human evolution "stopped at the head." The dog thing is just a strong and noncontroversial analogy in my opinion.

Make sure that YOU control the frame of the debate, not him

The "why did evolution stop at the head for humans?" argument is one way to do this.

You should also be able to refute the Guns, Germs and Steel argument because he will almost certainly make it.

If I think of anything else I'll post it.

In terms of the nationalism component of the topic, frame the debate around nationalism qua people's natural desire to be around other people like them.

Leverage the Putnam study etc. to this effect. Point out that nationalism when conceived this way is easily the only effective way to cater to the specific needs of specific groups of people and to ensure high trust, happy societies.

Also, looking at the discussion of ethics in this thread, I think understanding ethics is important, but the hallmark of a good ethics is that its principles make sense when applied.

For example, you really shouldn't be saying "I think deontology is right!" That can quickly devolve into fedora-tier intellectual masturbation that will persuade no one but fedoras (although, to be fair, this may be a good approach for Sargon's audience). Instead, in general, you should be debating from a deontological perspective: Your arguments (and examples in particular) should be crafted in such a way that people understand on a gut level that your judgment about the situation is correct and that Sargon's is untenable. This may require some Socratic questioning after he's disagreed with you on your conclusion, but if framed right it will be pretty effective on any viewer who hasn't already made up their mind.

Remember that you're not trying to change Sargon's mind. You're trying to persuade the viewers, and so is he.

bumping

Just put a bullet in him.

therightstuff.biz/2016/01/07/a-case-study-in-why-alt-righters-need-to-understand-ethics/

Ask him on my behalf why guys like him and Teal Deer have become such humorless fucks. I used to like their stuff, but they got it into their heads to stop having fun at the SJWs expense, and now it's fucking boring.

bump

Good point. It has gotten really boring. I don't even like Sarcuck that much, but he used to be decent to listen to when I was bored and he was just taking the piss out of SJWs.

sage for off topic

The race thread on /polarchive/ is pretty neat. Having links to back shit up with generally helps far more than simply making claims as you go.

People may unsuspectingly choose friends who have some DNA sequences in common with them, a new analysis finds.
Researchers compared gene variations between nearly 2,000 people who were not biologically related, and found that friends had more gene variations in common than strangers.
The study lends a possible scientific backing for the well-worn clichés, "We're just like family," or "Friends are the family you choose," the researchers said.
"Humans are unique in that we create long-term connections with people of our species," said Nicholas Christakis, a social scientist at Yale University involved in the study. "Why do we do that? Why do we make friends? Not only that, we prefer the company of people we resemble."
The researchers did the study because they wanted "to provide a deep evolutionary account of the origins and significance of friendship," Christakis said.
The new study is based on data from the Framingham Heart Study, which is a large, ongoing study looking at heart disease risk factors in the people living in one town: Framingham, Massachusetts. The researchers looked at data on people's DNA, as well as who was friends with whom.
After analyzing almost 1.5 million markers of gene variations, the researchers found that pairs of friends had the same level of genetic relation as people did with a fourth cousin, or a great-great-great grandfather, which translates to about 1 percent of the human genome.
The most common gene shared by friends was the "olfactory" gene, which is involved in a person's sense of smell.
Although 1 percent may not sound like much, Christakis said in a statement, "to geneticists it is a significant number.
He said, "Most people don't even know who their fourth cousins are, yet we are somehow, among a myriad of possibilities, managing to select as friends the people who resemble our kin."
The findings suggest that choosing friends who share similar genes is a behavior that may have contributed to human evolution, the researchers said.
"Imagine you're the first person on the planet to evolve the capacity to speak," Christakis told Live Science. "Do you think that mutation would increase your Darwinian evolution? No. Because you would have no one to speak to."
The usefulness of a speech gene would depend on whether a friend shared the same gene, Christakis said. In other words, there's an advantage to people's genes evolving in relation to those of their friends.
The researchers acknowledged some caveats to their conclusions. For example, it may be that people form friendships with those of the same ethnicities, they said. But to take this into account, the researchers studied participants from a homogenous group of people, from a Caucasian background.
The researchers compared pairs of strangers within this population as well as friends, using a "friendship score," which predicts whether two people could be friends based on their genetic background.
"What we're reporting is the difference between people who are friends, and people who could be friends, all from the same ancestry," said study researcher James Fowler, a professor of medical genetics at the University of California, San Diego.
The study was published today (July 14) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Violent crime correlates more tightly with race than with wealth:
ronunz.org/2013/07/20/race-and-crime-in-america/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/demographics/map-compare-racial-demographics-by-state-with-u-s-figures-20130307

IQ of offspring shifts towards the average for the race. If you have White parents of 95 IQ and Black parents of 100 IQ, bet on the White child to be smarter.
humanvarieties.org/2013/04/18/iq-regression-to-the-mean-the-genetic-prediction-vindicated/

Multi-racial environments are less cohesive, friendly, and trusting:
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf
boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/08/04/the_downside_of_diversity/

Biological examination can find the typical racial self-identification with an accuracy of 99.8%
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Mixedrace children suffer from more health problems
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

A massively well-funded study of over 100,000 schoolchildren found that “Adolescents who identify themselves as mixed race are at higher health and behavior risk than those of 1 race.” Indeed, even when controlling for education, socioeconomic status, and other factors, there is an across-the board higher rate of health risks amongst mixed race adolescents than mono-racial adolescents.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

One study found that White-Asian mixes had a 2x higher rate of being “diagnosed with a psychological disorder, such as anxiety, depression or substance abuse.”
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/uoc--baa081108.php

A study on Black-White mixes in agreement found that ”When it comes to engaging in risky/anti-social adolescent behavior, however, mixed race adolescents are stark outliers compared to both blacks and whites.” This holds true despite being raised in similar environments to mono-racial children.
msu.edu/~renn/RHE-_mixed_race.pdf

The average rate of success for mixed race couples is around half that of same race couples, 0.127 compared to 0.213.
jstor.org/stable/4145377

There is evidence that the more similar the two people are, the happier their marriage tends to be.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699190057I

A study in Iceland showed that 3rd cousin marriages are the most fertile and successful. Suggesting that mating within one's ethnic/racial group would be more beneficial than outside of one's ethnic/racial group.
sciencemag.org/content/319/5864/813.abstract

Race matters when a patient needs a stem cell or marrow transplant
time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-05/national/41085742_1_stem-jeffrey-chell-ancestors

The FDA have approved a heart failure drug called Bidil, but only for blacks, as blacks do not benefit from conventional heart failure drugs.
online.wsj.com/article/SB116096445875393515.html?mg=com-wsj

Indeed, although Black-White mixes are not sterile and males are not absent, males (the heterogametic sex) are more rare than females.
jstor.org/pss/1537084

The argument regarding Haldane’s rule is also meaningless because different species in the animal kingdom can breed and still produce fertile offspring. The wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris), the coyote (Canis latrans), and the common jackal (Canis aureus) are separate species yet can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3671304?uid=3739600&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699085472247

Two species of orangutan (Pongo abellii from Sumatra and Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can interbreed despite having different chromosomal numbers.
nytimes.com/1995/02/28/science/orangutan-hybrid-bred-to-save-species-now-seen-as-pollutant.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) and many species of birds, such as the pintail (Anas acuta) and the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), can interbreed as well.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420104723.htm
birdaz.com/blog/2011/02/24/mallards-the-weird-and-the-wonderful/

The gibbon and the siamang can also interbreed to produce a hybrid
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/451603
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1060807

Some species that aren’t even in the same genus can interbreed.
aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/74/2/111.full.pdf

Something that he likes to say is that people have no control over their race.

If he does, point out that it doesn't follow that their race has no control over them.

He also will claim that apparent racial differences are caused by differences in nutrition, and bring up studies that claim that differences in nutrition can cause a change in IQ of up to 15 points.

If he does just point to the Congo and note that 100-63 is a lot more than 15.

This article is a good resource: radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/come-back-colonialism/

Mostly everything on radish is. It was written by a Moldbug follower, but the information is all solid.

Is he still a fake game developer?

Never knew about this shit until I looked it up

Ask if he hates white people because the father of his wife's children is white?

Ask him how he preps the bull.

Ask him if the reason he supports the mass rape of British girls by shitskin immigrants is because the only pussy he would get outside of a cuckold relationship is a 10 year old that he would rape in a park bathroom

Ask who he hates more, white people or feminist

When he says some bullshit about environment being a huge factor on IQ mention the Igbo tribe of Nigeria.

They live alongside other Nigerians (who have an average IQ of like 70) while the Igbo have average IQs of ~100. The primary people behind the slave trade, AKA the Africans selling niggers to whites were members of the Igbo.
They rarely intermarry and breed with niggers because even Africans know better than to commit bestiality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_people
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aro_Confederacy

I can search for mor sources but I wish I had them all saved somewhere.

The very existence of a black culture in Nigeria with good average IQ scores among low IQ niggers proves there's a huge correlation between genetics and IQ/success.
The fact they're reluctant to marry outside Igbo tribes and whites is proof Africans themselves inherently understand this fact.

I'd racemix with a decent Igbo over a trailer trash white anyday.

If population density is the cause of discovery, why are the Jews over represented in discovery? doesn't the over proportional representation of Jews indicate superiority?

1) yes they are superior (victory, then you can talk about race hierarchy) (liberal jews will agree with this out of hubris)

2) No, Jews are not superior.

–So Why are jews so overly represented?(Education, reading the torah etc)

— So their culture was superior to our own and lead to the radical over representation?

—-Yes it was. (Victory. One is now able to argue that certain cultures are better than others. This means you can start establishing hierarchy, fuck Islam etc because it's barbaric and prevents invention).

—-No it wasn't. Neither their culture or race was superior.

—–So then how did they acquire so many accolades? the only explanation remaining is in-group preference and nepotism.

—–Yes (victory. If other groups of people can create in-groups you cannot enter voluntarily, and become overwhelmingly successful because of it, the only counter for your success is to create rather an ethnic or cultural group that cannot be infiltrated)

—–No they got there fair and square.
So, their race wasn't superior, their culture wasn't superior and they did not acquire their accolades through nepotism.

I legitimately cannot think of how you could justify their accolades at that point. Just ask if he's retarded at this point.

The most important thing you have to do, is make sure all of your losses will still result in victory. And that Sargon can't say anything bad about Jews.

Use Jews as a point of superiority (as mentioned above). Because no one is ever allowed to say anything bad about our Jewish overlords without their career tanking. So he will have to say they were superior rather culturally or ethnically. This means you can start establishing a hierarchy.

The most important part of a debate is framing it. If you push him into this situation, he cannot get out of it and victory is assured.

Ghoul recently "debated" (using the term freely) a Sarcuck follower on Woes' channel.

You will probably here a lot of the same arguments, you might wanna use the same studies to back your arguments as Ghoul did.

That debate was cringey as fuck. You could tell Ghoul was humoring the guy and being nice once he realized he was talking to a low information guy who wasn't his equal in intelligence or debating skill.