Holla Forums Debating skill honing thread

Are there any online resources about public speaking as well, or speaking in general? I am intelligent and I know everything that an user should know from lurking here for years, but speaking is my weakness. I find that I have the words in my head but it is often hard to articulate and get the info out.

I want to debate but I don't want to look like a sperg or hurt our cause

Things like public speaking is about self-confidence and practice. You have to think of the crowd the same as if you were talking among friends. Once that hurdle is passed, anxiety should be lower so you'll be less likely to forget what you want to say and should also make your voice more even and louder. Also remember that most people don't put as much attention to every single detail as you can yourself. Once I stopped being overly self-conscious and caring what others could say I sound like, I stopped sounding like a sperg in public. Practice makes perfect, most importantly in the case of long speeches with a ton of content. I say that as a once extremely introverted person to the point I required booze back then to be able to talk to a stranger.

1. Be knowledgeable
2. Be articulate
3. Be able to utilize fallacies to your advantage

One way to win just about any argument with the opposition is to appeal to their own logic by subverting it. Be prepared to change how you communicate and what your arguments are depending on the audience or your opposition.

When it comes to Liberals, argue on Liberal terms. Instead of arguing that other races are inferior and in order for civilization to operate, we need white people, argue that if they truly care about diversity, they would rather see a world of preservation and beauty, instead of a mixed brown mess. I usually do this by asking them the loaded question;

When it comes to Economists, argue on Economic terms. Instead of arguing that women don't deserve equal pay because they simply don't work the same hours as men, ask them the loaded question

My economics teacher got btfo with that question, he ran down to the staff lounge and none of the other staff had a response. He said they were trying to come up with a response, but he hasn't given me one yet.

Being knowledgeable is a must. Being able to pull any kind of information from your head is a skill you need, but generally speaking, ENTPs probably already are inclined to this anyway. Nothing more satisfying then throwing in a statistic, source or event that backs up your claim, and watching them look flustered and resort to personal attacks, knowing they can't respond.

Two tips:

1. Don't debate Marxists/Socialists. They're cunts, arguing with them is a surreal process of arguing with someone with a completely different dialect and revised perspective on history, and they're usually assholes as well.

2. Remain calm, never lose your temper, but be aggressive to a point of playful discussion.

I always wondered if public speaking is a natural talent, or something you can practice and be great at. Maybe it's both since I think Hitler was a natural, and maybe Rockwell as well.

I think if you want to improve your debating skills you should try to argue against the things you said in greentext.

That way you will build up an understanding of the thought process of the retarded people you are arguing against normally.

Pro Tip: to win any debate.Dont debate stupid people and things out of your expertise.(this tip doesnt work if you have anything less that 120 IQ)

It is both. If you're not born with an extrovert personality it requires a whole lot of self-improvement before even being able to tackle a public speech, let alone a debate. It requires a faculty of being able to go with the flow, improvise and have enough self-confidence to be able to project it, which a lot of the introverts totally lack. Took me many years before I developed the ability to do it. What made me able to is strangely hanging out in bars for 2 years, talking about the most retarded bullshit with whoever was around and being drunk off my ass. Eventually I found what worked best with me then applied what I learned in my everyday life. I don't need to be drunk to interact with strangers or crowds anymore and now I work a job which requires me to interact with many people at once and bring new ideas and defend them if needed.

AKA - I don't know how to defend my stances or even why I hold them other than Holla Forums telling me to - the post

I've always been an introvert, but I know you're right. Thanks to Holla Forums and having a job with customer interactions, I've gotten better. It really is going to take practice, and I'm going to get a lot of it. I'm the Fed Reserve protest user. Studying everything I need to know until I can have easy memory recall, and practice over and over is probably the best course of action. Thanks user

Please don't act like embed. You'll just make us seem even more like nutters. Still, good luck with your protest.

Nah fed protest user did an alright job, he just needs to work on his signs

I didn't see how it went. I was browsing when he was getting ready to go there but I had to work that day and didn't think to look at the thread when I got home.

My best advice for debating is this: know when to stop. Some people believe things for emotional reasons, as in they have a need to believe something that props up their worldview. Liberals are positive people (mostly) who want to believe that we are equal, and anything that might lead them down an intellectual path where that might not be the case is to be buried and ignored. These people are lost causes really.

The first thing I would recommend you do is test the objectivity of the person you're speaking with. I do this when I get into religious arguments as a fedora. Before engaging a Christian, I ask them if they think it's possible that I'm right and that they're wrong. If they say that they are 100% sure they are right and I'm wrong then I disengage. If they show some objectivity then I don't mind walking them through some logical steps.

I'm the guy who made the last couple debate threads by the way. I was holding off until after the election. Glad to see people enjoyed my threads enough to remember them though.

It's mostly natural. I'm an introverted person most of the time, but can go on a stage no problem and perform of a monologue. Usually we have the ability to hear what we're about to say, or know what we're going to say, an instant before we say it. I've been able to do this for as long as I can remember. I can give you some tips though, you may have the ability to become a good orator.

A good speaker shouldn't have to rely on scripts, an actor reads scripts. An orator speaks from the heart, and you should be able to feel the voice come from your heart, not your head or nose. It's hard to explain, but your voice needs to literally come out of the chest. One good bit of advice I learnt during my time in performance is that if you feel the vibrations of your voice around the neck and the lungs, you're doing it right. Do exercises, loosen your facial muscles, and remove any kind of stale air in your lungs. Also, do lots of tongue twisters.

Good orators are good story tellers. Diction (how you say words) is incredibly important. You must learn how to speak compellingly, if you wont, you're not going to be able to put on a good show. Make the walls vibrate with your own voice.

Incoming the most underrated redpilled orator ever. Thus guy could speak for hours, without a break, with no script, and speak incredibly well, even if he had a nasally voice.

youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs

Talk to yourself. That's what I recommend. Also, read stories to yourself out loud, record yourself and listen, see if you're able to scare yourself as you read a horror. Practice makes perfect above all else. Learn to love to talk, and learn to appreciate speech and the art of it. If you love to talk, people will love to listen, it's that simple.

ziegers hammer of the patriot is a decent read if you lack agency to get good answers for yourself.

I have the archive here archive.is/ub8v7
Like the other user said I need to work on my signs. I made mine with one days notice and free handed it. Next time I'll use stencils and other things to make it easier. If I can git gud at speaking and debating then I'll become a formidible enemy of the kikes.

I don't lack agency to get good answers for myself, i am just a newbie in this whole debate thing, and i also need to get my facts straight.

Take a listen to these then

soundcloud.com/noose_zeiger/tracks

I can't take anyone who argues for genocide or slavery seriously. I'm opposed to all genocide, just particularly my own people.

It's impractical and immoral. Slavery is subject to political opposition from nearly every facet of society, and has directly caused most of the inability to socially integrate the blacks into the Western world. It's also lead to white guilt. Which is one if not the biggest cause of white self-extinction problem.

Nazi genocide, lead to the Jews gaining their own state, which has turned out be a total disaster (even though Hitler supported it.) that has pitted most of the Western world against the middle-east and lead to an impressive amount of carnage and decades of conflict. Which has lead in turn to the eventual refugee crises and subversion of Europe we are seeing today.

Apart from the moral implications of these policies, there are social reasons for opposition as while nations profits in the short term, especially from slavery, in the long term these practices cost society and go down on the historical record. It's even more impractical in the age of nuclear arms.

Roger that. Just a small request though. Can you try tackling any of the greentext questions i posted in OP. I am just a bit curious to see some of you in action.

You joking? Fresh from infowars I take it?

Don't post here.

>>>/reddit/

US was practicing human experimentation on prisoners and the mentally ill in the 60s. Why is it so hard to believe that the Nazi's didn't start killing anyone who was a 'problem' during war time?

Pick one and only one

I guess by that standard white people aren't being genocided right now.

Because there's very insufficient "proof", conflicting and impossible witness accounts and mathematical/physical impossibilities all over the official narrative

Well from happened to happening there is a difference.

Which implies many accounts are falsified, it does not however discount basic logic. There are many accounts of genocide, torture, human experimentation, murder and slavery throughout human history. Please explain to me why you don't believe a dictatorship - when fighting a war for survival - would not use every means at its disposal. At the very least the nazis used jews as slave labor to make munitions and put them in ghettos. Even if you think the holocaust is unlikely to have happened, it's really irrational to think they didn't use forced labor.

Are you trying to tell me the nazis didn't mass detain jews to use them as slaves?

Shouldn't the skill honing be done with some simulation?
I guess it could be easy, you just have to pretend you're a leftist that believe to no end that other lives matter and everyone is automatically good.

So basically be ignorant of the world around you.

I want to try and see how you would handle it.
Let's pretend I am that leftist, see if you can convince me otherwise, remember that I won't check sites and I won't admit to being wrong unless you slam my skull into it.
Also if I find a way to namecall you I'll basically do nothing else but do that over and over.
Let's try it, something fun and just barely autistic!

_

You guys are just fucking retards, race doesn't matter, differences are only skin deep.
Look at Morgan Freeman or Martin Luther King, everyone can be anything they want to be, if people become violent it's just because they were forced to be violent.
Everyone knows that during war times those selling weapons are the ones that truly win, that's why they keep trying to create ghettos and keep the racial differences strong, the more we fight the more they win by making money on our shoulders.
Stop being childish, we need to help everyone as much as we can, just because they are immigrants doesn't automatically makes them criminals, if anything they can only add to our corrupted culture and economy.

You can't explain all human action with cold hard logic. Not that what you consider "logical" is in fact necessarily logical. You think it's more logical to just kill everyone of the parasitic problem makers. The germans thought it was more logical to deport them (haavara agreement, madagascar plan) and (usually when that wasnt possible) use them as forced labor.

I never implied the latter. In fact, that's what happened to a lot of them

They detained them yes, but not necessarily with the foremost intention to use them as forced labor, otherwise they wouldnt have started deporting them first, but put them in camps from the beginning. Detaining them was done to keep them in check and concentraded in few places. Of course the forced labor came on top of that

Awful logic and reasoning. For one, it would be mathematically impossible to kill 6 million jews in that time span.

Same poster again but isn't there a rational disconnect between saying a people are subhuman and unworthy of existing and genociding them. While at the same time using them as slave labor. If they're capable of slave labor, then they have a purpose of existence.

Most people insist ordinary Germans had no idea that the nazis were mass detaining or killing off jews. I find that incredibly hard to believe though. Surely they saw the police turning up and taking away their Jewish neighbors.

They must have thought they were all being deported, that is clearly not the case. Many of them had been in the camps for months. They were being used for slave labor. Why else would you keep tens of thousands of people in camps?

The point of the argument is that slavery and genocide are immoral. OP wants you to debate FOR extermination. If your views aren't backed by decent reasoning you'll get destroyed in a debate against a knowledgeable opponent. You should also examine why you can't reason your ideas.

The germans didn't consider them unworthy of existing or wanting to genocide them, that's where your assumption goes wrong. They considered them a foreign parasitic element and wanted them out, hence deporting them. When the war started, the deportations had to stop and they could only keep gathering them in camps, preventing them from sabotaging the war effort and rather aiding it through forced labor. This is just regular procedure, it's the same thing the americans and other allies did with their minorities like the japs and germans. They even kept doing it to the germans after the war, especially (but not only) the russians.

Mass detaining, yes, mass killing no unless it was jewish communist partisans in east europe. But that's how anti-partisan work is done

And here we have the crux of the argument. Between deporting your fellow human beings and enslaving them (which is depriving them of their freedom.) and using them as slave labor.

It is immoral to do this to another sapient being. So it's not just from a 'cold hard logic' point of view. There are rational reasons of course to oppose slavery, but from a point of view you are taking is simply excusing it. Or overlooking it because it doesn't match up to what you believe to be historical veracity.

There is some level of understanding that you have to see that the nazis were desperate in a war for their survival and continued existence. They were facing the death of their ideals which may be an excuse for why they then decided to take the jews into forced labor or genocide them depending on your opinion.

The third reich lasted a long a time and the war was 4 years. I don't see how it's 'impossible'. That's a really weak argument but anyway you need to reread the OP, you're supposed to be arguing FOR extermination. All you're doing is picking one piece out of the argument that you disagree with and somehow hoping it collapses the rest of the argument.

The original argument was slavery and genocide ultimately destabilize and damage society and are shitty policies. All you've done so far is argue B-BUT THE NAZIS DINDU NUFFIN.

Says who?

It's not about what I believe, it's about the truth. Nice try.

I'm aware, but this doesn't counter anything I said. And you have to realise that the deportations started before the war, so at that point they were generally not "fearing for their survival"

Again, opinion is irrelevant. It's fact and you'd realise this if you started reading into this topic. And like I said, forced labor did happen, because it was the most logical and rational thing to do in that circumstance. Why genocide them? To alienate any potential ally that will look down on that? To make yourself a monster fit for destruction in case you lose? Absolutely no logical reason.

The holocaust is said to have begun in ~1942, primarily by means of mass gassings (carbon monoxide and zyklon b) in a handful camps in very small gas chambers with very few ovens (or impossible open pyres). That's what's impossible about the story. And it doesn't even begin to cover the falsehoods with the official narrative.

You're arguing from a point of fiction. I'm just explaining to you why what you believe is wrong and to give you the truth.

Mass extermination of an entire people hypothetically (under conditional and logical reasoning) would destabilize and damage societies with shitty policies I guess. But you're omitting historical truths at that point which is turbo autistic.

It's impossible to train 6 million people around to death camps during a war, trains would be coming into death camps at an unnatural rate, like one every minute or two. Not to mention the lack of evidence ever found for it, like bones, mass graves, never uncovered. There weren't even enough pits to put all the bodies in, mathematically it wouldn't be possible to do so if you examine the pits. Also, all the witness testimonies were garbage and cannot be used as evidence.

Sterilization is more humane in my opinion, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to secure yourself.

ur a fagit

Not to mention that a full genocide would have been impossible. Germany couldn't have reached all the jews in the world

I'd also like to invoke census data which shows the number of jews going up after the war and no loss of 6 million.

...

I would expect the number of Jews in the Axis countries went down and the number in the ((Allied)) countries went up.

A rational examination of the census data would be very interesting.

This is a poor argument because it doesn't really matter if you didn't kill all of them. It's like saying well you only cut off one of his limbs. He still has 3 more. A lessened wrong is still a wrong.

This is a good argument, I would go further and say that in a wartime situation and you were dedicated to victory at any cost, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to use huge amounts of resources to concentrate on killing an entire people. Especially in the latter days of the war after America joined and the nazis began to lose. Resources would be even more precious at that point and this did not directly contribute to the war effort.

Perhaps it was decided that they had made a mistake by rounding them all up and it was costing resources they didn't have to keep them prisoner. So they decided it was simply better to kill them off as quickly as they could. The intent isn't genocide in that case, but it amounts to killing a lot of fucking people. Though you have to question why they would keep imprisoning more and more of them in camps. Wouldn't it make more sense to keep them in the ghettos?

...

If you look at something like the Armenian genocide, it seems the easiest way to kill people is to take them in to the middle of nowhere and then dont give them food or water.

This doesn't really matter if you read all my posts.

Just stop propagating your fantasy. Read my other posts, I explained this already. The fear of jewish sabotage of the german state or the war effort was based in reality, considering in germany in 1919 there was a jewish-communist revolution in bavaria and generally most of the higher-ups in communist russia were jews as well.

Also this. Mass killings have happened often enough in history and have been done much quicker, easier and more efficiently. You don't need an elaborate gassing-then-burying-then-digging-up-then-burning-then-burying-again-scheme

How about this: The nazis were arrogant at the start of the war and they started with the idea that their victory was inevitable, especially considering their early victories with blitzkrieg.

Later on the attitude shifted from contempt and wanting to get rid of / exploiting Jewish people to being worried about losing and wanting them disposed of so that they did not spend as many materials and resources on the concentration camps. It didn't really matter to them that 'disposing' of the Jews meant killing thousands of them.

Ultimately this did more damage to the natsoc cause than losing the war alone would have done. Perhaps it's simply made them easier to demonise. Think about it this way: some criminals when charged with a crime, never show a bit of emotion in court. This is always exploited by news papers as saying the killer showed 'no remorse'. Like he should be sorry for what he's done. When in reality, he is most likely simply resigned to his fate rather than guilty. The ability to demonise someone based on their actions is extremely powerful. In the case of a murder trial it could easily result in a conviction of an innocent man simply for not showing remorse for a murder he did not commit.

Yeah, that's why they kept feeding them until there wasn't even enough food for the guards and civilians themselves, why there were literal kid and family barracks and why they evacuated the camp inmates when the soviets came rolling up and marched them to camps further west

But during a war time you want to conserve resources, particularly bullets. Maybe they didn't want to be associated with the brutality and savagery of using blades.

One could argue that was the entire purpose of the ghettos. I think to the nazis it was more about this though:

That's really interesting, never thought about the Bolsheviks. Actually makes a lot of sense since Hitler fucking hated the Russian communists. His main beef was always with them and not the Western Europe which he admired some aspects of.

I do have one criticism of your argument. You are implying that the rational suspicion of sabotage justifies imprisoning random people because they have similar ancestry. This can be compared to modern times with the threat of terrorism from Muslim populations.

Do we simply do as the nazis did and imprison them all?

Obviously the children and older people are no threat and could have been left alone. But they were rounded up too, why?

Why target everyone indiscriminately, why not look for people who actual communist supporters?

Ghettoizing and imprisoning an entire people makes that entire people your enemy. It's an adverse tactic that hurts you more than simply picking off the malcontents would.

It's like when you are a sculptor and you have a block of stone. Do you simply smash a half-finished statue with a sledgehammer because it has too many flaws? Or do you work at it with a chisel and refine the imperfections.

That's a Redpill/10 counter argument. But you'd need sources for that to convince someone.

Then you start walking into logical quandaries that will eventually lead to you denying the holocaust narrative (or holocaust itself really) entirely. It just doesn't make sense, from a purely rational standpoint which is what liberals like to invoke 99% of the time (and like I said before, ignore historical truths and facts and purely use rationality, as Rousseau liked to do in his shitty books) why they would do such a thing when:

a. their supply lines were drying up and being cut off by a massive invasion force

b. they would need all the labor they could possibly get

c. they would need all the resources they could manage to get, and certainly couldn't spare a hundreds of trains making casual runs to the ghettos, across the country in back every day around the clock bumper to bumper with eachother

etc., etc.,

It's not only mathematically impossible, from a purely logical standpoint, it makes no sense.

I will do an attempt

What led you to such a conclusion ? Do you have anything to back that up ?
Differences aren't only skin deep. In fact there is a sound difference in IQ
( Source: targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=2812 )
and said "skin deep" differences imply genetical differences alltogether.

An overglorified hollywood actor
A civil rights activist

Nothing of significance any of these two have accomplished and in fact the second one was a destructive force towards western civilization. Look what excactly ?

This can easily be debunked. I will give you an example. If a black guy wants to become a white guy, he can attempt to mutilate himself irrepairably ( Michael Jackson ) but he still won't be white genetically. So no , everyone can't be anything they want to be.

Well they do have profits but the war campaign of the victor is victorious and the main victor or in your words "the true victor".

The more we fight the more ammunition and more weapons we indeed use , which gives them bigger profit , but it's also crucial that we use the resources they provide in order to win said war. Why shouldn't a weaponsmith be rewarded for his work.

How and why am i being childish ?

Would you help the man that actively wants to murder you and everyone around you ?

Depends on the immigrants. European immigrants that go into another country are indeed not criminals in most cases.
3rd world immigrants that immigrate by the millions into European countries , despite being a minority , they are responsible for the majority of crime in said countries ( source : muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/ )

How and why is our culture corrupt ? In fact i find the culture of European nations fascinating.
Most of our economic problems can be traced back to fractional reserve banking , which is not a "European" concept but a "Jewish" concept.

Get back to wherever the shithole you came from.

I'll bite. How many of these six million were killed with 'gas'? Where are their bones? No one here is saying no provateurs were killed, but there's a big difference between killing fifth columnist kikes within your borders and genocide.

I wonder what changed their mind?

Perhaps they were concerned about the psychological and morale impact on ordinary German citizens having that so close to home.

The easiest way to eliminate a whole group of people would have been to wall off the ghettos so most people starve then torch the place.
I dont know what the value of the ghetto areas would have been. Maybe it was better to reclaim that land for other people and build camps?

Im not presenting an argument really. I just brought up the armenian thing as a very cost efficient way of genociding someone.

Im not convinced of any of the accounts of what really happened.
But it seems a bit odd to me when some smelly backwards Turks do something much more efficiently than the Germans.

...

al people. Its not so much an issue of getting the cultists to want to get right with god but creating an enviornment where having an intervention and filming it does not cause everyone involved to be ritually murdered for oath breaking and knowing of things spoken by those who have clasically broken their oaths of obediance and silence. It is depending on people who sold away their soul to something that by its very nature is almost impossible to audit without outright physical confrentation.

Filming a cultist walk into a lodge is not so easy because they do not all arrive at once. Nor do they leave at once. They have a schedule of incriments over hours where the cult master decides which dupe can leave first all the way to the last person and what time to arrive the next meeting.They do this every meeting in random order to keep them on their toes and their best behaviour.

Each member must arrive and leave in a lapsed spread out duration that suggests the mason is not only a mason while he is in the windowless building but at least 8 hours if not the whole day of the lodge meeting. Probibly the night before and definatly after having to wait paitiently before they are allowed to leave.That should tell you these are not simple prayers and sermons of a non-religious persuasion but literally like the leatherface club.

On tv and shit they always have some jackass apologizing for being late how much is that a reflection of real life to non-masons? A lot I am sure but to introduce a charecter as such(Sorry I am late but*) is not a sign of carelessness nor does it really effect the plot even given context to the story like a desk job that does not mean he was stuck at the office. It is a masonic point of enterence a token if you will. They are late to the 21st century but at the same time we arte behind their facade of the Future. They have a plan and it is the 3 world wars but it is vaugue so they are in no rush and always they say it is happening!ITS THE END OF THE WORLD! THE SKY IS FALLING! OH WHAT ABOUT THE JEWS! OH LOOK AT THIS GUY NOT BLAMING THE JEWS HE IS A SHILL! THE ONLY WAY WE CAN KNOW YOU ARE TRUE IS IF YOU LITERALLY PRETEND TO BE HITLER! LOOK AT THIS GOY! RIGHT WING DEATH SQUADS! GOAT HILL FAM! LOOK AT THIS FUCK FOLLOWING RULES! HE DOESNT KNOW ABOUT KEK BEING THE PLAYFUL TRICKSTER NORSE GOD EGYPTIAN ROYALTY! VOTE TRUMP! PLEASE TAKE MY MONEY! Anything to get you away from talking about the lodge. They will let you molest their children before they tell you the password to their entrapment club. And the password to their stockholm society is "Fuck my little children".

* Divine intervention is a spinoff of the addiction intervention TV series exept we are dealing with really dangerous and delusional people

...

Also be calm but assertive.

Dont be too vulgar but take jabs when it benefits.

Always use legit sources. Even if you dont post the sources for your argument, always have them ready when asked for.

Use emotional arguments as a last resort.

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Trannies are mentally ill. We should encourage their recovery, not indulge in their delusions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

wew

nevermind I need to gas myself.

Mason here. On meeting days we all get to the lodge about an hour before start time to eat dinner, which is open to the public. The meeting starts, takes a couple hours, then we leave. Most go home, some (like me) walk down to the local tavern for drinks and conversation, but everyone's out of the building around fifteen minutes after close. The lodge, like most lodges, has plenty of windows. Please go down to your local lodge sometime and try to strike up a friendly, non-autistic conversation about Masonry.

Official Holohoax narrative was that it started when Germany flattened poland.
So 6 years. More like 4-5 before all of Germany were on retreat.

Try harder.

So facts dont matter then, right?
We are onto you already, give up.

Most importantly, always think about what to gain from the debate. Don't waste time arguing over petty bullshit when there's no people to turn over.

On the internet the most important thing to think about, is to make the arguments and what you lay forward presentable and relateable to presumed readers/lurkers. They are the ones you want to win over first and foremost, not to win some stupid argument against someone who will never accept your point of view.

This. Your audience is always the readers, not the person you're arguing with. They will 99% of the time not want to admit they're wrong or concede. They are also just one person. Convincing one person doesn't help. If there's nothing to be gained from the conversation, you don't engage.

None of this should have to be told to you if you aren't an idiot, though. If you didn't know this before, think to yourself why didn't you before? That will be much more helpful than just following some outline framework given to you.

EXTREMELY UNDERRATED POST
This guy fucking gets it

...

Does anyone have some really good points on why women shouldnt vote?

For arguing with christians I can use the heirarchy of the family (man > women > children) and ask why shouldn't society be ran that way also.

I have the socialist policies one too but would like some more zingers

Any other ones anons?

They think with emotion rather than logic. Womens' brains are scientifically proven to be inferior to mens' (on average).

Post is proof that the mods are paid shills.

gas yourself

That's like your oppinion man

What the fuck, sorry; I didn’t mean to quote yours.

That’s the one.

Watch it all the way through. If you still come out on the other side believing in the holocaust you're a lost cause.

...

Here, let me help
this is the part that is relevant
here

So do you believe in gas showers?

I'm a sperg who routinely gets gang-banged by his family in conversations in which I'm the only redpiller in a sea of blues. While I'm trying to answer one question, two others will yell out some other ones and I get overwhelmed. Is there a tactic to shut those fuckers up between questions?

I always get a huge adrenaline rush when I'm in the heat of a debate, so much so that I usually stumble over my words so I do sound kind of autistic at times. Is there a resource I could use to avoid errors like stuttering and stumbling on my words when speaking?

Also, I'm currently attending classes at a university (yeah, I know it's Marxist shit) and I was wondering if it'd be a good idea to take more public speaking courses to improve my communication skills, because I feel like I don't annunciate certain words enough. Is it worth it?

BTFOed that thread of faggots hard.

...

Marxists/Antifa will not debate. Shitposting is far more powerful than debating.

Fuck off.

I agree with you on Slavery. I think GLR or Pierce said that slavery was a huge mistake because our people should never be reliant on another group of people.

Your holocaust theory is sheer fabrication, Nazi Germany never had a state policy of killing as many Jews as possible. Israel was already becoming it's own state before WW2 with Zionist migration from Western Europe and Russia. Look up the Balfour declaration.

Jews always had the same attitude towards Europe and Christians. Now that they are in power they can just be more open about it.

You're possibly in the anger phase. That shakiness in your voice is a result of your emotions coming out. At least, that's how it was for me.

I find that arguing reasonably is very difficult outside of educated white males so I don't even try. It takes a lot of effort to put together a well reasoned argument and ultimately exposes you to the other side countering you with the false logic they have likely been programmed with.

Instead, I prefer to use emotion and let seeds of doubt grow over time. If I was discussing the invasion of Europe I would show them information about migrant rape in the most indirect ways possible. Even if it's a silly mild meme that wouldn't be directly offensive. Let them stay awake until 2am googling information.

This is also much more efficient because you can dog whistle to people who are already woken up or who are very close to being woken up. At the same time you don't waste time on people who are completely unwilling to listen to reason.

I've also found that when someone has been "red pilled" on one topic that they are easier to influence later on. For instance an "edgy atheist", a libertarian, and a MGTOW type are all people I find distasteful to put it lightly. However, they have already challenged the existing narrative, even though their conclusions may not be accurate. Therefore they are able to be redirected to proper information more easily than someone who still has unwavering confidence in the public narrative.

Even still, you might not be able to get someone like this to understand the fraud of the holocaust directly, but keep building towards that without tipping your hand. Once you get them to accept the Holocaust as a Hoax or 9/11 as a conspiracy the rest of the dominoes will fall into line and you'll have a brand new National Socialist.

When debating jews IRL

You must shitpost in real life. Make fun of them, be smug and laugh in their faces.

You are not belittling them for you own amusement, but for anyone watching or listening.

never defend, only attack

Open it happen to be a master debater

No, the problem with slavery is that it allowed the formation of African political entities through trade, brought blacks to European nations, and enabled profit for Jews.

Nonwhites never can and never will integrate into white societies because they aren't white. Multiracial societies do not exist, and multiracial polities are shit.

The West has been against the Middle East since civilization began, but in a particularly genocidal manner ever since the Arab Replacement AKA the Rise of Islam.

I see no problem with genocide (nebulously defined). I, in fact, advocate the eventual minimization of all nonwhites by whatever means necessary. Exactly like what happened to the Indians in the US, except perhaps without them being so numerous.

For someone going on about "basic logic" you sure don't seem to exhibit it.

Because you can't move them? Explain to me how you are supposed to get people out of your blockaded, starved territory whilst being bombed and invaded.

Your morals are false.

You think building gas chambers, cremation ovens, manufacturing obscure chemicals, and mining fuck-tons of coal and gas is less resource intensive than shooting them or just fucking not feeding them?

There is nothing wrong with deporting/killing all Muslims.

Because you want them out of the country anyway. They are foreigners. They weren't even European. Do you even understand the point of nationalism?

Besides which, everywhere they went they caused numerous problems, which implies it's a problem specific to the population in question, not just "a few." Why expend resources on a eugenic program on foreigners?

When there is no point to refining the statue, fucking yes you smash it. Especially when those "flaws" actually hurt you and your family.

First off you need to attack the idea of voting being a "right." It makes no sense in the traditional understanding of rights, which is conflated with the modern understanding that is synonymous with "entitlement." Call it what it is; "entitlement" makes people a lot more uncomfortable, and it suddenly makes it seem more petty.

As for attacking the idea, ask this hypothetical: "If universal voting was guaranteed to collapse your society and civilization, would you still want it?" The idea here is to get at why they advocate universal suffrage in the first place. They must either advocate it from a moral position ("It's wrong to not let everyone vote!") in which case you must push them hard on whether keeping civilization alive is more important than being moral. If they say it isn't, there's no reasoning with them, so just call them suicidal imbeciles laboring under false morals, which is exactly what they are.

If they accept that keeping civilization and society alive should/is the general aim of group morals, then you push them until they logically admit that they would be open to the possibility of abandoning so-called "moral values" such as universal suffrage. Once they are open to abandoning such bullshit, you can merely show them various evidence regarding how shit everything has become following universal suffrage. Things like pics related. You can also look up articles on who would have been president if women didn't vote, and see how those presidents that only won because of women stack up.

Only in a formal environment. In a casual one, you can endlessly throw "circular logic" at them until they concede defeat. The trick here is that it is only circular in their minds and for them to understand that they have to break their own conditioning. It's a very low effort way of winning which will garner you a lot of disdain from how easy it is.

archive.is/Lmfla
Yeah, but the libtard believes it. Just need to shut them down, but I am a dumb.

No, the crux of the argument is "Nazi genocide lead to the Jews gaining their own state." This is not true. The Jewish myth of Nazi genocide was the final coup that resulted in a jewish state.

Changing the topic to the capacity for genocide, or the wrongness of forced labor is transparent shifting; a standard kike tactic. With kikes, don't let them play the slime, always changing positions and using manipulative wordplay (labor camps = literally slavery); go straight for the jugular and force them to return to their initial positions.

And remember, you're arguing to win the audience, not the kike, who'll just return the next day having forgotten any 'loss'. The only way to win against the kike is gas, not words. Go back to wherever you came from, faggot shill.

The fastest and easiest way to committing a genocide would have been loading people onto a set of cattle cars in the winter use a train to drag the cattle cars into the middle of nowhere, and then unhitching the cars (preferably in a blizzard). They would all die and you could return in a few months and pick up the cars after scavengers had picked the cars clean. Strangely this didn't appear to have happened despite so many people being transported in cattle cars.

read HAMMER OF THE PATRIOT

I'll just leave this here.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

this

Some questions from someone.

This. Also remember to play the crowd. Debating a hardliner might be worth it if you can elucidate your opinions to the masses.

You can't really debate Jews because they know bullshit from a young age. You might be able to point out their bullshit, but who know if that will work. Here's a video example of Pilpul by (((Alan Colmes))) against Jared Taylor.
youtube.com/watch?v=KPg8JBh6mQk

David Frost was a goy who tried to stump Enoch Powell with the same bullshit. This video should be required viewing. Enoch wipes the floor with a disingenuous debater.
Vid related

Pilpul
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12153-pilpul
huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522.html

You let them ask the question while you steer the direction of the discussion, knowledge is key here.
Know how far you can go without derailing the topic at hand, always make ties to the original argument at hand. If the discussion goes out of hand remember how to tie it to the original topic with anectodes or words they said so it doesnt feel out of line or desperate.
Usually it is skill that puts a discussion back on track. I heard many people say "i m hard to convice or i never get convinced" and then it is fair game. You write a symphony in their heads, i will write a symphony in your head until dance to my tune. And my tune is the mastery. Everything about yourself writes it, your bodylanguage, your words, your knowledge and your intelligence, the perception others have of you. The more respect you earned the easier the knife cuts through butter.

And btw, dont waste your time on SJWs. Those people are hoarded goyim, they follow when others follow. Make the others follow that makes the SJWs follow.

And besides the internet it is really some really facinating shit to see how some really intelligent people think, to see their mind work and the words the use to express the grinding of their inner machine, filled with knowledge and the conclusion of that. And how easy it is to see their inner vectors, their laughs they interests their attraction. Like a blackhole you can create out of being them, surpassing them or make it like you surpass them. Like a chessboard of the mind, and at the same time it is just sad how their inner defences get circumvented by the flow of time, like some sterile machines that lack basic instincts and once you revive their instincts and its like giving them crack. CIA, central intelligence agency, it should rather refer to something that is missing central intelligence, something that is central to your brain. More like cerebal intelligence.

...

95% of debating is making the audience identify with you more than your opponent. Use their language, be confident, engaging, if the audience connects with you it hardly matters what you say, since they'll rationalize any discrepancies away in your favor.

If you're debating a politically active lefty, definitely get them to open up on all their positions, since the Activist Left has strayed very far from most normies political comfort zones. Make sure you paint your opponent as extreme and concern troll the hell out of them. Most of them operate out of the Rules for Radicals playbook even if they don't know it and don't know how to do anything other than tear arguments apart with shoddy reasoning and tactical nihilism.

Other than that, make sure you check out the Holla Forums reading list and always keep a few anecdotal examples around to hammer your points home, since that's more engaging than a bunch of statistics (though know a few of those too)

Or if all that sounds too hard feel free to just mock the shit out of them.

First user hit the nail on the head, second user. For the majority of my life I was quite simply afraid of talking to someone out of fear that they'd think I was boring/unfunny/not interesting and hate me as a result. It was a problem I had since early childhood and only managed to overcome after Trump showed me just how important speaking is as a skill.

The key point is this, most people only ever speak outloud when they are in a conversation, so they are limited by who they talk to and what the topis of discussion are. For introverted nerds this means they never get the practice to fully understand how articulate they can be, and they live their life avoiding speech out of fear and embarrassment. "naturals" as some people call them, have simply had enough practice with enough people to understand what they can do with their voice, and how most people will respond, and they have enough practice to make real time adjustements to their mindset (hence the god like banter of Trump)

All you need is to practice speaking out loud when nobody is listening, perhaps by reading a book like I did, and you need to improve your confidence by working out and re-evaluating your life. After that, it's just a matter of collecting factoids and soundbites that hit the right buttons with the target audience. Take note of the recent case of a wheelchaired woman in sweeden getting gang raped by somali niggers, and how the court ruled it okay because she didn't fight them off. It is very easy to spin such a story for maximum emotional impact, and also rational discourse on how non-whites have no place in our society. But you need to practice this.

ah fuck me, this user already posted everything I said, but with immediate practical applications beyond sperging out to yourself at home.

Because the vast majority of Transexuals exhibit signs of mental/psychological problems brought about through either trauma or chemical imbalances in the brain. A lot of them don't seem to understand the consequences of transitioning; changing sexes is not the same as flipping a switch. Once you chop off your penis / mutilate your vagina and experience regret 2 years down the line its too late to revert. We also don't have anywhere near enough data on all the drugs and medicines we are taking on the time scale of a thousand years or more. We could have already potentially doomed our species with all the supplements we are taking.

Because it is goes against our biological imperative, which is to mate and create offspring. The coupling of same sex individuals which does not lead to a creation of a future generation is at best a waste of resources and at worst treasonous to your species because you are weakening your race by refusing to pass on your genetic material.

If I recall correctly same-sex couple have a higher incidence of domestic abuse

Depends on numbers. Small groups of intelligent, open minded immigrants willing to assimilate fully to the host country and adopt the host nations values and culture are welcome. The host nation's rule of law must be respected above all else. The immigrants must understand they are guests, and they have no leverage on the existing governing body. The right to immigrate of course is entirely dependent on whether or not the host nation has the means to support the influx of immigrants and whether or not the host population is willing to accept immigrants. Allowing other nations to dictate your immigration policy weakens the sovereignty of the ruling body and is treasonous because the ruling body is no longer prioritizing the well being of its people.

This argument can be used to point out why Europe is falling apart in the face of the refugee invasion they let happen.

Going to think about this and skip it for now. Revisit if I feel like it.

This is similar to the previous question regarding 3rd world immigration (or any immigration for that matter). As long as the Jews or -insert ethnic group here- can put the interest of the nation state before their own religion and adopt the culture/values of the host nation they are welcome.

A free market with limited government intervention is the best economic system. Government intervention should only be permitted in the case of countering a foreign nation's influence (like setting tariffs) and enforcing buyer/seller rights. No elected official may have ties to financial institutions and their accounting records must always be open to the public at all times. Additionally, no financial institution may insinuate it is part of the governing body at any given time.

As a basic rule of thumb, for a country to succeed financially it should always be producing more than it spends.

The political structure of a nation is entirely dependent on the education / knowledge of the population. Every type of government can work on a theoretical level, but theories do not always hold true in real life. Almost all governments can work if all of its citizens behave logically and are willing prioritize the needs of the many over their own while having access to perfect information. Too weak of a political body, and your nation will become susceptible to external influences. Too strong of a political body, and your citizens will suffer the yoke of oppression. A population needs to find the delicate balance between government presence and personal liberty.

Every population gets the government it deserves.

...

t. Sowell

This is civic Nationalism. This is cancer.
Time after time, nation after nation, the Jews have shown that they will consistently put the values and ingroup preference of their religion above all nations, even their own.
They must be Slowly shipped to the quarantine zone that is Israel, as the preferable alternative to an ACTUAL holocaust.

As to your answer to the Immigration question, Studies show that Immigration is an extremely insignificant gain on the economy at large, whilst simultaneously risking the genepool and communal ties of the working class people affected by it.
10% of america's Economic growth (in 2015, IIRC) Was due to population growth.
The other 90% of Economic growth was due to Innovation.
There is no incentive to immigration, It is entirely for feelz, and that one smart immigrant you propose letting in has an extremely small chance of contributing anything worthwhile.
The darwin digest had a really good couple of episodes on this.
radio.therightstuff.biz/2016/09/25/the-darwin-digest-episode-30-immigration/
radio.therightstuff.biz/2016/10/10/the-darwin-digest-episode-32-white-demographic-decline/

boy I sure do hate niggers