What are the best non-arguments to use, to take control of an argument? What are things you can say that sound correct or snappy enough to shift focus away from the real argument, and when and how are they best applied?
What are the most effective ways to counter snappy non-arguments.
The truth. Jews and shitskins lie. Don't be a Jew or a shitskin.
...
What are the most effective ways to identify non-arguments and reveal them naked as snappily as possible?
The term is "rhetoric" and there are thousands of books on the subject.
Publicly listing your tactics is a bad idea when our enemies are currently suffering from ease of detection and ineffective persuasive techniques.
That is what commies, lefties, liberals and other subhumans do.
We use the truth, always. If one of us does not know the answer, then one honestly tells that "I am not yet familiar with this subject, to be honest."
Lies and tricks are a big vulnerability, and we do not need that, because the truth is on our side. The truth is the strongest foundation to build an conversation on.
"Snappyism" is also a method used by leftists, commies, liberals, and other subhumans. It is arrogant and repulsive. We stay righteous and just calmly note, that you are trying to derail this conversation. Try to look up for basic argument mistakes, for example.
Ad hominen and ad hoc are the ones that the opposing side is commonly using.
What's the best book for a beginner, in your opinion?
haha, fukk off auistist! XD
I do understand that arguments with these people can't, nor will ever be won by logic or hard facts alone. However, the main reason we don't use the same tactics that these people use is because it could very much lead us into the same hole the left is in right now. Unable to actually argue or defend their points, slowly making less and less sense as time goes on, and eventually polarizing the general populace against you.
These types of defense tactics encourage intellectual laziness, and as gratifying as it is to do it is way too easy for anyone to slowly slip into that as a standard method of communication. The LAST thing we need is for everyone pushing against the left to become as intellectually lazy as the left has; if that happens the truth will surely be lost.
One of the things liberals do very well is equip other liberals with useful canned counter-arguments to standard cuckservative arguments:
E.g. "Blacks and Whites are equal legally now, why do Blacks need affirmative action?"
To which the lib just regurgitates some spiel about institutionalized oppression, phantom discrimination, implicit bias etc.
The average conservative-lite has no response to these verbally dexterous canned arguments. They know on some instinctual level that it's wrong to give nigs gibs, but they can't really articulate a defense against a mass of non-falsifiable postmodern talking points.
We need to equip our own side with similarly hard to falsify arguments. Pocket arguments, if you will. And we need to teach them not to take liberal naked assertions about the world (eg poverty causes crime) for granted. Identifying such naked assertions and challenging them is one important part of this.
Try reading Art of the Deal and Presuasion.
One thing to remember is that you're rarely trying to argue with a person based on some agreed upon terms, you're trying to get them to agree with you. In other words, it's not that you want to argue on the other person's terms for doing so means you've already lost the argument.
Example I like to bring up routinely is "free speech". Arguing with some leftists about "free speech" can be an exercise in frustration as you'll find they're adamantly opposed to free speech while at the same time saying they're in favor of it. This is because they have a different definition of "free speech" which to them means "limiting free speech" because they view free speech as limiting the free speech of those that would feel uncomfortable being disagreed with or having mean words said to them. So it's important to not get bogged down in their personal definitions and arguments they pose, as there is always a good chance of it being completely removed from reality.
Which is why you try to argue based on your terms and your own arguments. Though it can be useful to refer to their terms at times, such as ridiculing the idea of limiting free speech so as to protect some special snowflakes' feelings, since it limits their ability to use that argument or forces them to reveal their hand by having to argue on behalf of their ideology that they normally like to pretty up (such as by saying they're wanting to protect "free speech" rather than saying they want to limit speech).
Laughing at your opponent's ridiculous arguments can be really disarming for them, especially if they're leftists, because they're used to the idea of laughing derisively at who the media has told them are idiots. They don't want to be the target of mockery and will feel like they need to distance themselves from those positions being mocked.
Tell them to fuck off and refuse to argue with them
Arguments are not about convincing the opponent, but convincing the audience. If you give up, then "lol rightwingers are such crybabies that can't have their precious beliefs challenged hahaha"
A simple: "That's not an argument"
Just make sure to point out their subjective views, opinions and rhetoric every single time. Don't answer to or argue with non-arguments, just call them out. That's it.
>>>/fyad/
Very true, it's their go to method in fact.
OP, I don't know if that helps but whenever you argue with subhumans, don't try to convince them as that is completely futile (why? because of their inherent dishonesty, they'll never admit they're wrong and just keep lying more and more), instead try convincing and addressing the other listeners. Either the public or the bystanders or whoever.
They're your actual target here, they're the ones you're trying to convince, not the subhuman you're debating. Make sense?
If you're game I'll play the part of an arguing Semite. Pretend I'm a Jew and you, through the use of rhetoric, aim to expose me as the demonic force I am. I'll take the first move for example's sake:
Your move, Holla Forums
Just describe the trick Or method Your opponent is trying to use
Your beliefs don't have much to do with it, but while we're talking about them, your backwords beliefs in your holy texts promote pedophilia
Go ahead and tell me how I misinterpreted that.
ugh. Annoying. As if there isn't enough disinfo online already..
Well then you should be totally ok with an Israel where Jews are projected to become an ethnic minority by 2044.
These were different times – where people didn't live past 40. They don't apply now. Of course referencing such things we must keep them in context.
Here the Jew uses the Context method: first the Jew claims these were "different times", which is true but now the Jew tells the light:say: "they don't apply now." The Jew is hoping the goy doesn't realize Jewish Law applies now just as it did back in Moses' day (jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Are you actually celebrating the fact Jews are quickly becoming a minority in their own Homeland because it's purposely being diluted through the flux in illegal Palestinian "refugees''? This is like anudda shoah! Israel has the right to exist!
typical emotional argument which hinges on how persecuted the Jewish people have been and are now
Holla Forums isn't _just_ anti-semitic, Holla Forums is against all degenerate cultures.
Before Israel, the Middle-East was a war-torn, lawless hell-hole. Israel has been a major contributor to the advancement of technology. Israeli doctors, for example, have developed life-changing treatments and drugs. Surely you can't deny how great of a friend Israel has been with the rest of the world? See more of Israel's achievements here: aipac.org/learn/about-israel/israels-achievements here the Jew attempts to Re-focus your perception of Israel by commenting only on the good it has done, as little as it actually is. the jew doesn't even comment on your claim of degeneracy or asks for examples because the Jew knows you'd easily provide them. Re-focusing the Perspective is often goal #1
Hammer of the Patriot is an excellent book that gives lots of good rhetorical advice and arguments in favor of nationalism
(checked)
Biggest part of arguing in general is presentation. People naturally agree with the person who appears dominant and put-together. Logic doesn't factor into the equation for about 90% of all people. That's why most of your argumentation should revolve around you presenting yourself as part of the audience's group and your opponent as an outsider. Mock the shit out of them.
Anonymous Conservative has some great resources on how to trigger leftists during arguments. Read his series on triggering the raw amygdala. You'll never have a problem debating again.
starting to feel filthy now. done playing moloch's advocate.
One tactic which works well against stupid people is to get them to explain their own ideas. If you can discern where their argument is about to venture, set up trap questions in advance to force them into contradicting themselves a few steps later. People start losing confidence in themselves and tripping up on their own thoughts as they try to unravel the two contradictory ideas they've tried to spew at you. At this point, you can offer them some 'kind' advice to go away and think some of these things through more, and to get back to you. Tucker Carlson is pretty good at this technique, but he does have the advantage of controlling the flow of the debate.
Asking the Right Questions was my first book in preparing for debate team; I will always recommend it for an initial foray into critical thinking. goodreads.com
Not directly related to the thread, but I'll let you goys in on a secret. Namely, how to redpill an irreligious lefty on a Jew.
First off, mention something Jew related, in casual tone. Their defense mechanisms will kick in. When you sense that, either through their silence or wonder, ask the following:
This will piss them off because it sounds like a bad joke. Then elaborate:
This will turn the conversation into much more acceptable, informative tone. Then say the following:
-The Jews are Jews because they did not accept Christ as their messiah. In fact, they are still waiting for one. Christ is not fit to be their messiah because their messiah should be the Jew that will rule the world. And they are the type of people that make their prophecies happen.
Viola. You thought they hated Christians? Leave it at that, and check back in a few days.
If debating with jews pull out your phone and youtube Metzitzah b'peh videos, ask them how anyone who sucks mutilated bloody infant benis can hold the moral high ground. They don't like that one bit, brings up the old trauma, and shuts them up quick.
Listen to the Hammercast. They do a good job of giving canned responses to common objections that are simple, hard to counter, and make your opponent look stupid/evil/uninformed/disingenuous. Having confidence, never losing your cool (though still being harsh when needed), and making your opponent look like a total idiot are very important in winning over normies.
And it's fun! Even if your argument ends at a stalemate, normies will lean towards the side that's having the most fun.
I love how the socratic method makes leftists piss their pants and run in logical circles. You don't even need to ask difficult questions.
It's hard to learn about a culture that keeps themselves ostracized and segregated from the rest of society through use of their own doctrine.
this so much. i honestly can't find an example of a degenerate who doesn't argue like this. just go on twitter and look at any replies to a right-wing account. all have the same annoying tone and dismissiveness of any other viewpoint.
Arguing is for equals, and your people.
Arguing with an idiot who is diametrically opposed to you is a waste of time and effort–they will never agree, learn, or understand and will resist any attempt at introspection or reason.
You argue with people you care about, who are at worse fence-sitters, and people who are capable of using logic to join your side, or at least compromising.
So the thread overall is misguided.
see
Damn your good.
Just wanted to post Stefan OC I made last night.
...
A condescendingly smug aura of ethnic fascist superiority increases the effectiveness of truth by 50%, 50% of the time
The best argument is truth + emotion (with more emotion than truth). Like Goebbels said, effective propaganda must be true, but the facts and figures only work on the tiny proportion of the population that are able to use logic and reason. That's why we must aim right for the feels, which people like Gex do perfectly (while also telling the truth!) This is why our memes work: they get right to the heart of the matter while pressing the right buttons.
Your grammar is almost African.
Hammer of the Patriot. nationalactionlondon.files.wordpress.com
Is pretty much what your looking for. has many many topics and ways the counter leftists arguments in multiple ways.