Hey guys

Hey guys,

With the recent Xexizy and TRS debacle, I thought I'd give some advice about having a live debate.

Specifically, you need rules and structure. These Wild West "debates" with without rules and structure can't really even be called "debates" so much as just a bunch of people arguing.

I'm not going to say that you need to autistically adhere to some competitive debate format, but there should be some format and agreed-upon rules before the debate even starts.

First, you're going to need a debate topic, two teams of equal size and a neutral moderator to enforce the format and rules.

The general format should be something like this, in chronological order:
1) Opening statements - Both sides present their argument
2) Cross examination - Each side critiques the points made by the other side
3) Closing statements - Each side presents their final critique of their opponent's argument and the make a final defense and appeal for their own argument.

Each segment should have it's own predetermined amount of time allotted for each side to speak.
When one side is speaking, the opposition cannot speak until it is their turn (with the exception of certain rules like Points of Information, if you agree to that)
It should be determined, before the debate, if facts, statistics and other forms of research can be used (if not, it becomes more of a "values" debate)
And any other ground rules you agree upon.

Also, disable the chat. The debate should be between the two teams, not the idiot spammers in the chat.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Who gives a shit, it's just an internet debate.

Shit, I think I was a member in high school.

I don't bother applying that kind of shit to online drama though. If debating were fair and formal, no one would bother.

Then you really shouldn't bother.

Especially against fascist, I would demand a structured debate.

I wouldn't have internet debates, especially against fascists, without some kind of formalized structure.

We should also have a neutral moderator.

Debating fascists is hopeless because they are skilled in it. Look in Hitler's book and people who seen him debate during his era. He will never lose to a communist but this is ok because communism is not about debates.

But xexizy needs to be destroyed. He is an ugly underaged child who looks like he never worked a day in his life and knows nothing of our struggle.

Fascists typically didn't win in debate, at least structured ones, because most of their appeal was through "force of personality", sophistry and demagoguery.

yeah nazis never lost a debate, i grant you that.
nobody was ever able to prove christians wrong either.

You didn't read a single thing, did you? It never even bother mentioning them it's just that he was right that the bolshevik revolution did fail them but if you want to be obtuse, he was right that the bolsheviks were generally of jewish hands before Stalin took care of the problem.

Make sure to understand both your own and your opponents believes.

Hello Holla Forums. Go die in a fire.

There is a difference between winning a debate and actually being right. TRS only did the former, but Muke didn't really do either.


Holla Forums barely understands its own beliefs.

btw if you need some really strong arguments to convince yourself that fascism is wrong i suggest you read "Mein Kampf", or the new version "Deutschland schafft sich ab".
They are so full of logical fallacies, uncientific truisms, open lies and insane rambling that i wonder why none of the nazis tried to argue that hitler was part of the jewish conspiracy and only acted like an idiot so that Germany gets destroyed and everyone thinks the nazis are morons and all their ideology is wrong.

sage for double post.

You guys keep raising the bar (or letting it sink to such shitty depths) on what it is to be huge faggots that you honest to god impress me, I never knew such levels of super faggot could exist

t.Holla Forums

...

Can you link me that debate you had with that monarchist LARPer? If it was on a hangout

R I P
lost it when I moved channels

fun fact: www.haaretz.com/jewish/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-and-african-roots-1.309938

also one of the funniest things i read recently:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration
also check out the surrounding articles, it's just one neverending stream of epic win (or epic fail?).
i don't want to spoiler yet and i hope the en version is as good as the de version (which was actually somewhat edited to not make germans look quite as retarded, which made the whole thing even funnier) but the mistakes the germans made are incredibly amazing.
like, if they appeared in a comedy movie you would find it trashy because the characters behave unrealistically stupid.

There's a conspiracy theory that Hitler is the illegitimate son of a Rothschild. He does look kind of Jewish.

and when i say "the germans" i mainly mean hitler who was informed about all those issues and events (according to wikipedia jews ;o )

Wait so, what was your previous channel? Do you maybe know the name of the guy you debated?

It is very poorly written. I'm not even sure how he debated so well when his writing was like another animal. Was it even a correct translation I wonder?


I wish I could be angry with you but anger should be directed at counterrevolutionary actions that only set us back further and those responsible. In the end I don't know who to blame more that stupid muke kid or that stupid xexizy kid. We have no real champions, only losers and children. Why? Can you tell us your secrets, Holla Forumstard? How did you get such big guys to join you and not just that not an argument guy who I never thought would turn to you.

it was the same name, but there were privacy issues with it. Same ones as Black Pigeon Speaks actually. I realised it was gonna cause trouble in the long run, and looks like given the BPS thing I was right to move!

His name was Iberian Viros, Idk if he's a youtuber, I found him on skype, and he didn't record. I do believe you can probably find his channel if he does have one tho

...

...

i didn't know people could believe different things than i do either

Thought someone might say this.

Would you say Socrates has an honest dialogue with sophists? I would say he forces them to by his method.

This is the internet tho, debates are always welcome.

Kill yourself xexizy. You fucking caused irreversible damage to us in that debate. Who the fuck told you that you could represent us? Not me and you look like you haven't toiled a fucking day in your life just fucking look where and how you lived. I was expecting hobble and humble or rough and tough not fucking full blown upper middle class child.

Yeah, but if you pretend things should be serious you will look like a massive retard.. Muke broke a cardinal rule of the Internet, one of the founding tenants of chan culture.

Most people from TRS aren't actual fascists though. It's mostly a meme. The average TRS listener is a lolbertarian or something similar.

what kind of lolbert wants a government with enough social authority to kill or forcibly evict people based on skin color

The kind of people who would shoot at BLM protestors for destroying their private property because they're small business owners kek

so the self-hating whites get a free pass?

I think you're taking the memes too serious. Anyone that isn't underage knows that wont work.

I personally hate any liberal who hates himself because of his race/gender/status
it accomplishes nothing

don't believe everything you read from their memes, amount of people who would actually inact such policies is not by any means big enough to carry them out, lol

The Socratic Method was just another form of structured debate.

If you think facsists or any faction of the aut-right are interested in an "honest dialogue", you're fucking delusional.

...

...

If you take it in normie form, sure. But it is as its heart a rejection of all methodology and favours infinite negativity. It builds nothing.

That's cool, fam, but it doesn't change the fact that Socrates came up with his own method for debate with the sophists.

And fascists are even worse than the sophists. They are not there in anything remotely resembling good faith. If you must debate them, you need to demand a structure to your debate.

With some groups, "honest dialogue" is not an option, because they're not going to meet you halfway on that point. I'm being generous by supposing that fascists can be debated with at all.

I've seen a few YouTube debates and the best thing is to have a moderator who can keep it on track.

Definitely, that's important.

But it's not everything.

how do you even debate the alt-right

lolberts, ancaps, neoliberals, they at least have some theory and history of thought to stand on in a debate

internet traditionalists on the other hand are literally le wrong generation the ideology, their worldview is that everyone except them is living out an elaborate cuckold fantasy because of jew brainwashing, and all they have for arguments is that SJWs are not photogenic. their beliefs are borderline religious and cannot be argued with using reason

sorry for shitposting flag

Many of us went there because we WERE idiots. Everyone is ignorant of something at some point but they learn. Sure there are people that just shitpost and refuse to change but I'd say they aren't the average person. I used to be an edgy dumb kid and now I'm an edgy dumb adult that's willing to research and learn about new things.

Well, for one thing, you don't let them talk over you or dominate the conversation.

I guess, if you want to call dialogic a method.

You're right, honest dialogue is not an option, until you can find the method that you can use to pin down your opponent to being honest. Just so happens there was a very effective method invented by a guy called Socrates just for that purpose. But it's not possible to apply in structured debates, because people are making 5 points in 10 minutes or something and there is no real back and forth as is necessary.

There isn't going to be a "back and forth" with the far-right.

Once again, these aren't people arguing in good faith.

The only way a back and forth could be prevented would be if they didn't talk to us at all. A person who can't pin down a person who doesn't argue in good faith is not going to do any better in a structured debate, and likely even worse.

How about if you have 3+ people yelling at you and refusing to engage with you?

that's not a dialogue then, that's a hexalogue, which is just a silly idea in the first place unless it's text-based.

also, if they refuse to engage it's pretty obvious who the audience is generally going to think is stupid

By agreeing that you'll only have one other person in the debate, you've already agreed to a sort of structure.
You. These are fascists. They'll think that the fact that you're getting talked over is a sign of you being "weak".

I'm not arguing against "structure". All debates have structure if you look at it that way. I'm arguing against formal, rigid structure.

"You"
"These are fascists"

The audience? Then why even debate? No point, they'll think the same either way. I'd only debate a fascist if there was a neutral or open audience. Otherwise it's literally a waste of time.

Heh, Rebel's comments got deleted?

If you're using a VPN, did you ever respond to me?

I did. That was prickly being a tard.

You can call it a structure I guess, but I'm not arguing against structure. I'm arguing against formal structure, and rigid structure of speech. And you can call anything a structure really that way.

As for the second part, why would you debate when the audience are all fascists? What's the point? I'd only debate on a sphere where there is an open audience.