Debating with Liberals

I'm a bit tired here, so what do you mean by 'just wrote the blurbs for your FB picture?'

You will never be able to convince him, because in his mind the government is a cute stuffed animal that will always stay that way. Gulags, mass graves and ethnic conflicts is something humanity has overcome in the current year due to finding the power of love. In that world banning AR-15's actually make sense.

...

If you're going to debate liberals, do it on your own wall so they can't delete the post when they realize they can't counter your points. You probably won't convince them, but you may influence bystanders.

As an extra bonus, greenfag appears to be one of those tumblr cocksuckers who writes stream of consciousness and just spits out whatever comes to mind instead of forming a full coherent thought. This works in your favor because you can selectively delete his posts to make him appear rambling and off balance and then hide the post from him so he can't defend himself or his points and it looks like he gave up and conceded the argument. (AFAIK, you cannot edit or delete your own comments on a post that the wall owner has hidden from you)

Kikealicious tactics, sure, but we must secure the existence of our firearms and a future for assault rifles.

Should have tried to trigger them or used better argumentation.

Like

Yeah, this.

You need to post these pictures on FB and illustrate what a faggot that guy is, ESPECIALLY if he's going around lying about your conversation after having deleted it.

This is my first time I have tried to debate on my facebook account. I did debate the same man in my Government class about the Second Amendment, but he somehow got the topic on the middle east. He's not the best at defending his points, but I thought it would be fun to try.

As for debating on my own wall and deleting comments, I do not want to be the one who censors because screenshots are always a possibility. It could come back to bite my ass.

How can people just lack so much self awareness. He himself is using those kids to push his own politics

This is my first time I have tried to debate on my facebook account. I did debate the same man in my Government class about the Second Amendment, but he somehow got the topic on the middle east. He's not the best at defending his points, but I thought it would be fun to try.

As for debating on my own wall and deleting comments, I do not want to be the one who censors because screenshots are always a possibility. It could come back to bite my ass.

This faggot on my feed.

I'm not even sure what he is arguing for anymore.

Liberalism is a mental disease.

Checked

Those are not better arguments though. When I think of using those retorts, all I can think of is a child covering their ears and yelling in order to drown out the other's voice. I'd rather not be that.

I felt my heart shudder when he accused me of using the kids.

/thread

That has to be satire. "75-yr-old grandma with the belt-fed, gas-cooled 6-barreled monster strapped to her arthritic back proudly stating that she's not afraid of "a damn thing"
It has to be…

I used to say that around the house with my liberal mother. Got angry when she went through menopause, but it was well worth it.

Holy shit I almost had a stroke when I read he was radicalized by American right wingers.

Just what?

Fuck me you shouldn't have censored his name I really want to beat his brains into the floorboards.

Yes,
/thread
Stop wasting your time.
Read and grow your own mind and if you truly want to redpill do it on a platform not to individuals.

Someone's been reading Trump's tweets lately.
Well put.

Isn't facebook the best platform to do it on?

Leftist arguments basically can be condensed to "muh feelings", they lack evidence, sometimes even a logical foundation. They react to things based on pure feelings and nothing else.

Then you're going to lose every time, because your enemy is using playground rules nigga, so either you keep Charlie-Brown-Teacher's voicing it up with all that logic and facts and shit which your opposition will dismiss out of hand while referring you to a Salon.com article.

TRS had a long conversation about this - stop arguing against base rhetoric with dialectic.
Think this is the ep:
> therightstuff.biz/2016/04/19/the-daily-shoah-81-the-white-slate/

You may not want to be that 'child with hands on ears', but that IS what you're arguing against whether you like it or not, and playing by schoolyard rules is more fun (and often more effective) than trying to play teacher.

… Unless you're arguing purely for the audience.

Best scenario: One or two to argue dialectic for the sake of the audience, and several sources of rhetorical opposition to keep the target off-balance and demoralized, and ready to be deconstructed or meme'd upon.

Well mate you tried and did a decent job. I used to be a national debating champion and I know a few others, let me give you some advice.
1. If you have superior knowledge, use it. Steer the conversation towards a point where you can visibly trounce him.
2. Don't get bogged down in semantics, the name of the rifle is not important, refrain from talking about less relevant points and point it out when he does so. Claim that he tries to distract from the main point (Is he an islamist).
3. Make a good comparison. If he goes "muh feels" say something along the lines of nazi germany treating gays better than islam and they were a lot more right wing than obongo. Alternatively compare his points separetely and point out poignant similarities that favor your positition. Challenge him to refute them.
4. Point out failures in his logic and if he makes an outrageous claim, ask him where he got it from. Be prepared to have your own sources at the ready. Even if you don't like his sources, quickly disregard but keep on topic.
(Huffpo is a biased source and you know it, you need actual data bot masked op-eds)
Hope it helps.

Isn't it better to take apart his argument bit by bit in order to prove that everything he says is wrong? That was my main goal during this entire thing. If every little thing has been discredited, won't that discredit the man that said them?

Everyone hates it when I mention Nazi Germany and the similarities because they think I'm overblowing the situation ( which might sometimes be the case I'll admit) and making an ass of myself. I've tried to refrain from it as best as I can.

My problem with sources is that I'm the only one who uses them around here. In the debate above, I used two sources for the refugees wanting to throw babies because it sounds outrageous. If someone is debating only using their feelings and you can't steer them clear of that, then using sources yourself will give them a chance to discredit you for 'Nazi propaganda' stuff.

Nope study bullet lethality. Pistols do not reliably kill in a single shot. AR/AK hollow points are far more lethal per bullet. You shouldn't need gun even for an AR. A well built AR with a proper mag, proper buffer, and decent quality ammo is very very unlikely to jam.

Gotta remember that "assault rifle" has a very specific definition: it is a selective fire rifle (meaning it can be used either semi or auto) that uses medium caliber rounds supplied from a detachable magazine, and should have an effective range of at least 330 yards.

You can also bring up that using "assault rifle" to describe such a weapon was in fact propaganda thought up by Hitler/NSDAP to hype the MP43.

liberals are never happy, they get their way then the next lot aren't satisfied and want more and more

Give an inch and before you know it you'll end you'll end up with stricter and stricter bullshit to the point where nerf guns are getting banned.

It's like civil rights, now the current gen whines about microaggressions.

They aren't about what's right, they are about FEELING good and FEELING safe and they are NEVER satisfied to don't ever give an inch to these fucking people.

Lol no. You aren't in a debate. You're in a situation where shaming, suppressing and emotive language will win. Obviously, you can use facts to back this up, but as has been said, the cardinal rule is to use rhetoric when rhetoric is being used on you, and only use dialectic when everyone else is too.

I was going to mention that the AR-15 was in fact not an assault rifle, but did not see a good place to add it in.
Linking everything back to the Nazi's is not a good idea for me.

Fighting fire with fire is not the best way to go about things though. If someone sees a person using facts against a crying child, they will see the crying child as pathetic. If someone sees two children fighting, they'll walk past it without a second thought.

Yes, it really is in this case. Trying to use dialectic exclusively against someone using rhetoric hamstrings you and is counterproductive. You don't lose the tiny effect of some rational, reasonable fence sitter liking your facts so much he converts to WN then and there, because using rhetoric doesn't actually preclude using facts as I said, and you also gain a whole bunch of people who are only capable of or care to be swayed by rhetorical arguments

You can have a look at the writings, work and experiments conducted by Vox Day on this exact topic, and his conclusion is also what I said above: rhetoric for rhetoric, dialectic for dialectic.

For your pleasure:

voxday.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/a-lesson-in-rhetoric.html

And also see this for a more rigorous explanation (particularly chapter 10) of why what I'm saying is correct.

>>>/pdfs/4023

These people you just have to mock and laugh at. They aren't arguing in good faith and they'll deny the sky is blue, even if it's not relevant to your argument.

All they do is deconstruct.

I didn't read all of it. But here's what I would have done…

Reminded him that guns are not for sport, or for hunting.
Rather, guns are for protecting one's self from the government.
Theres a quote which i dont remember well, that went something like this:
'Arming the populous is the best way to prevent the government from overstepping its bounds.'

Just go with some founding father's quotes next time.
buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

Then they throw the old, "that's not real Islam" or the "Well Christians are violent too, I can't name any in the last decade, but you know it's true!"

There's a great quote on this:

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The (([liberal])) had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

Gradually I began to hate them.

Here's my input to the thread topic, because holy shit this is both disgusting and mind-hurting to read.

The faggot's an anarcho-communist furfag with a vore fetish.
pastebin.com/KK7WkP3y

It's a matryoshka of several pastebins, actually.

Note: Do not go after this fag on steam, I actually do want to keep milking him for keks.

what president allowed fucking shitty muslims to come here?

I'm sure other aware anons have already pointed this out, I'm not going to waste my time reading this entire thread. You cannot save these people from indoctrinated bullshit. The reason we have had so much success recently is because we don't give one single fuck. Control the narrative, and treat them like children.

Liberals are fucking idiots, do they realize that actual assault rifles require all sorts of hoops to jump through to purchase?

And modifying a semi-automatic weapon is federally illegal?

These fucking mooks.

anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/

anonymousconservative.com/blog/narcissism-and-the-fractured-amygdala/

The muslim one.

No. I mean why the fuck was immigration ever open to muslims. I can understand letting whatever euro wanted to come in. But muslims are closer to niggers than anyone else so you'd think we'd have learned the real lesson from slavery.

dont let them fucking breed in your country

You are underage aren't you. I can tell by your shit arguments.

Your kikebook friend is doing nothing but social signaling and you are just repeating points that you heard on your favorite alt-right Youtube channel but never really thought through.

It's futile to debate liberals with logic and facts.

They don't speak the same language. If you want to "win" an argument with a liberal you have to use emotional points and do it in front of an audience. Debating a liberal is much like debating a woman in that way. Their wins only count if it's in front of other people that agree with them.

anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/

Read the above link for some pointers.