Debate Thread , further your debate skills

Is there actually anyone left to debate with the possibility of changing their mind? I used to argue with libshits all the time in the past, providing objective facts to counter their feels but they would simply ignore my arguments calling them hate facts or would completely shut down, abandoning the discussion.

Instead of honing your debate skills, you should probably work on your marksmanship skills, a far more useful debating tool in the age of liberals throwing punches at people who want the west to survive.

National Socialism's value is in its truth. If you are incapable of winning honestly, the fault lies with you.

"Hate facts are still facts". That's something that can shut them down easily. Also remember the rules of engagement.

if you're enemies punch you, you win

I'm an agnostic kekist, close enough?

Err i think not

I have to bounce to work i will be back to continue this later. Keep it rolling and keep it good.

You should value truth and logical cohesiveness above all else, this is what the nobleman is in his very essence and at his core. As highlighted by a previous user these are also the key tennets of National Socialism.

As a side note I can tell that you are drastically unfit for proper intellectual debate against our ideological enemies since this isn't self-evident to you.

TL;DR = read more

are we talking about a formal debate or just going back and forth with someone
because if you really want to change someone's mind in front of a crowd, using a formal format makes it easier to win in public opinion

Study for the LSAT.
No, really, even if you've no interest in taking it - the skills you learn in preparation for that test are really useful in the context of deconstructing an opposing argument down to its base elements, and then employing them to destroy your opposition.

There's a reason the LSAT has an entire secondary-testing date simply for those who are Jewish and thus cannot come to take the test on a Saturday like everyone else - its basically "Jewish Argumentation: The Exam", and its litigious properties force you to develop an analytical approach to argumentation that can blow even the nastiest kike fuck outta the water.

Turn their own weapons against them, and watch them shake in fear.

Yes, you should… In a perfect world, of White people.

But we don't live in that world. And that's not how kikes argue.
You approach argumentation like that, and the average kike will fuck your shit up fam, because they don't give a shit about stuff like truth or logical cohesiveness - they care about winning, which means convincing the audience of X, Y or Z.

There's a reason Hitler's quote about arguing with Jews, and how they make you start to hate them when you debate them, exists - they don't fight fair, so to speak, and if you want to win reliably and regularly, you need to be prepared to face them on those terms.
If you don't, or can't, you're liable to lose the audience when laid against a kike who can and will.

I believe the intent of the thread was more for casual, but I certainly wouldn't mind hearing ideas about more formal debates.

I'd much rather call my opponents out on their jewry than adopt it. Their dishonesty is a weapon that can be used against them if seized upon, but any such potential is lost if you stoop to their level.

It's entirely possible Hitler had the SA stuff ballot-boxes to get elected. Should he have refrained from doing that because it's not fair?

Is this some sort of meta bait where you use jewish tactics for my sake so I can point them out to strengthen my argument?

It's to show you a situation where acting like a kike is a benefit to your race. Is infiltrating law enforcement and public office off-limits because kikes did it? Is infiltrating universities off-limits because kikes did it?

At what point do you realize the shit the kikes do is the easiest, most sure way of assuring your total victory? Arguing like a kike wins over audiences. The audience will never care that you "fought fair", they'll just laugh at you for losing.

Yeah, but I refuted it with ease because I recognized it as kikery. Kike shit only works against people unwilling or incapable of pointing it out. Against people as smart or smarter than them it's nothing but a hindrance. Joining law enforcement or running for public office is hardly dishonest either, so I''m not sure what your point is.

If you were to apply for a job at a university or as a law enforcement officer you would absolutely have to be dishonest. You would have to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which would obviously be shredded in a National Socialist America.

And I have bad news for you but most people are not as smart as you. You have to pander to the masses. If there's a crowd of 20 people watching you and some kike argue about the benefits of Nationalist them then it's statistically likely 18-19 of them will be stupider than you or I.

A crowd of normies doesn't "refute arguments", they just see who's winning and then generally go along with them. They don't logically produce chains of thought that link together, they just go "Oh wow that dude saying open borders is good couldn't really keep it together at all, maybe Nationalism Guy is right, the other dude couldn't even defend himself".

there's a difference between "owning" someone and getting people to agree with your opinion that don't already
Dilbert-man gives some example here: blog.dilbert(dot)com/post/154768183356/how-to-be-unpersuasive

Analogies: Analogies are good tools for explaining a concept to someone for the first time. But because analogies are imperfect they are the worst way to persuade. All discussions that involve analogies devolve into arguments about the quality of the analogy, not the underlying situation.

Hypocrisy: Pundits like to point out that politicians often criticize others for the very things they have done. That sort of observation is good entertainment but it is an intellectual exercise with no emotional power. You need emotion to persuade. And hypocrisy is such a universal human quality that it’s hard to get worked up about it when you see it.

What if the situation were reversed? Lately it has become common to address any criticism about your team by speculating that the situation would be viewed differently if the other team were being accused of the same misdeeds. While this might be true in some cases, it is an intellectual point in the same way as hypocrisy, and thus it has minimal persuasive power. The only power it might have is embarrassing the media toward a more even-handed approach in the future. But it won’t change anyone’s opinion about the current topic.

What about this irrelevant data? Even relevant data has limited persuasion power unless it is substantially new information. People tend to only believe data that fits their existing opinion. Irrelevant data (such as the fact that Clinton won the popular vote) is even less persuasive than relevant stuff.

Appeal to Experts: As long as there is at least one expert on the other side of a topic, the experts as a whole are not persuasive. To be clear, if you are introducing yourself to an unfamiliar topic, the number of experts on each side might matter. But for familiar topics such as climate change, it only matters that some experts are on the other side. And there are always experts on the other side of controversial topics. For example, here are a handful of climate skeptics: read.bi/2i0uKz2. That’s all you need.

You can identify the pundits that know nothing about persuasion because they use all of the approaches above and none of the ones that work. I’m excluding the hosts of mainstream media and Internet opinion shows because they are more about entertainment than persuasion. The hosts might understand persuasion but that won’t necessarily translate into using it unless it is also entertaining.

The “So” Tell: When you see an argument on the Internet that begins with the word “So…” you can be sure that what follows is a mischaracterization of the other side’s point followed by sarcasm and derision over the mischaracterization (but not the actual point). The sarcasm and derision are good persuasion because they act as an emotional penalty for maintaining the opinion that is under fire. But generally the “so…” structure of an argument causes both parties to debate the characterization versus debating the actual point.

Word-Thinking: I have never heard of anyone winning an argument by adjusting the definition of a word. But that doesn’t stop people from trying. We argue over whether a fetus is “living” at any particular point. We argue over the definition of a true “conservative.” We argue about whether or not Trump won in a “landslide.” We argue about Trump being a “fascist.” I doubt any of this word-thinking changed minds.

by the way, my interest in Dilbert man is that I have had a history of success in two things, among others: lying to people, and winning debates

While I can't say I won debates by being explicitly persuasive, because I wasn't aware of it at the time, to get good at beating arguments is to not only plan out counter arguments for obvious points, but attacks on your points as well

If you can't see a weakness to a point you make, you need to empathize more with how someone could reasonably attack it. That's how you construct win-win situations where the enemy bringing up a point is a segway to another point you'd like to make, and makes you seem all the wiser

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the transfer to national socialism must be done unconstitutionally. And I have to admit I don't really know how to use jewish tactics to win a debate anyway, my experience is entirely on the other side of them. But my goal isn't usually redpilling the majority, the people I want most are those capable of following arguments and understanding them, and dishonest tactics could push them away from me,

That's the optimal approach, but its not always possible.

But, again, not always.

False.

See, this is the problem: You're basically functioning under the age-old assumption that good and truth wins.
But it doesn't.
Often, it gets fucking annihilated, because the audience isn't composed of rational, high-IQ, well-informed people - if it were otherwise, we'd be in that perfect world I mentioned previously.

You're basically saying "Torturous bio-chemical weapons can be extremely effective, but when used against me, I'd prefer to note how awful they are and hope thats enough to win the day", and that's just not viable bud.

You can't walk the high road and expect to beat the guy taking the low-road much, or even most, of the time.

Nah, brother, nah.

And in fact, often enough, if you're pointing out kike shit as 'kike shit', that's the move that results in your defeat.

Always humiliate your opponent after besting them. If you btfo your opponent, record or screencap and spread it around. Your audience isn't limited to the people who are around at the time. It is anyone who encounters the exchange at any point in the future.

Ah, okay, well, be prepared to be defeated - at least, if victory is defined as convincing a majority of the audience that you are correct - quite often.
If you're approaching this in a targeted context, wherein you're willing to accept defeat on those terms in exchange for victory in the context of convincing a specific subset of the audience, that's more understandable.

You can't always take the high road, especially when the stakes are this high. You have to be willing to totally and unfairly humiliate, deride, chastise, and unfairly criticize your opponent at every turn. Men who argue like you are the reason Hitler hated arguing with Jews. If you go in assuming good faith you will lose, because they do not have the same assumption.

Not only that, but your loss in the argument will be a small rallying cry to the kike to accelerate even further the destruction of your people. He is a pied piped leading easy to manipulate Aryan children into the river. It is your duty to play the right song and lead them away from those vile cretins.

Whether you like the song you have to play to do it isn't really up to you, you have to your duty to woo the masses to your side, doing whatever it takes.

I'm not taking the high road out of vanity or naivety, I'm going in with full expectations of their dishonesty and the desire to use it as their ruination. Isn't their manipulative and abhorrent nature the root of the hatred against them? Their nature is their weakness as much as their strength, and the last 50 years were the only time they weren't punished for it due to their greatest accomplishment, the holocaust deception. Shattering it would destroy them, and I believe disproving it to the public is my greatest priority.
And the masses don't follow the jews due to their dishonesty in debates, but due to their influence on the government, education, and entertainment. I agree that the highroads can't always be taken in regaining control of those, but when I was talking debates I meant more in the context of online discussions with a person.

Execute an emergency break in the debate by using dirty methods if it's very important. Only few people in the audience can see through these methods and you can at least safe face for the most part.

Basically everything the good old greeks said one shouldn't do in a debate.
In general tho, you should prepare your shit better.

If you want to truly reach somebody, you have to frame your discussion not as a debate, because this will immediately put you in a position of you vs me. Most people can't let their ego slide and actually debate something without thinking its an attack on them personally, if you attack their view.

Concede because you fucking lost
and
Don't be afraid to learn something new

No, you don't concede.
You do as said, and then you make a point to come back and continue on another time when you're prepared. You can't just be prepared to beat them though, you need to utterly annihilate them: Beat them into submission so thoroughly that no onlooker will take them seriously, or that you're seen by those agreeing with him as a monster. Never concede an inch unless it allows you to take three more.

Quality thread

Reminder
If you're gonna do any kind of debating, use your voice beforehand. If you do multiple hours of office work or studying without talking or you just woke up, your voice will sound like shit.
Talk slower and louder than you normally would and if possible, stand up while talking look at how molymeme is always standing in his videos
There is a reason for the mind&body thing. Bad form can fuck up the best debater

For any anons in non english speaking countries: Practice and formulate your arguments in your native language. It will destroy your rhythm and make you look like a fool if you cant remember a word because you only read about it in english. Do not use anglicisms, most people won't understand them or will get confused.

My problem is it's easy to debate online with google at my disposal, but real time arguments leave me in "………" moments. I've had this problem playing games online with a headset and the topic of politics comes up and I'm left thinking of shit hours or days later that I should have said.

I never debate anyone IRL, its completely useless, people on the internet generally have enough non-normalfag in them to be able to be swayed by logic and reasoning, facts and figures

If you meet a leftist face to face IRL and try to debate with them it will always end badly

It's good to remember that meaningful arguments can't take place quickly. Even if you put up the perfect argument against them, pride and cognitive dissonance prevent anyone from accepting it quickly. Reassessing your beliefs takes time and effort and too much at once is completely overwhelming. The best you can do is answer what you can, and promise to look up what you can't answer and continue the conversation later. If you refuse to say anything at all and act stubborn about it then you give the feeling you aren't debating in good faith and the whole thing is pointless. (I'm assuming these are people somewhat close to you and that you can have multiple conversations.)

take the things you realize you should've said, sharpen them, and prepare them for next time. having those gaps suggests that your understanding of the particular topic is not as good as it could potentially be. as well, keep a compendium of useful sources, archive links, images, marked pages in books ready and don't rely on jewgle's scrubbed search results to get you anywhere on redpill material when they're designed to fuck you over in that situation. when you really have people hooked and state a convincing argument, the next follow up will be "i want to see proof of this" or "ok, if that's true, show me", something of that nature, so having your material in one place and ready to break out can bring people who are on the edge, all the rest of the way.

Learn from Trump and learn how to reframe a question. It is a jewy tactic, but it is effective on 99% of people. Don't fight the battle on their turf, you have to decide the turf, and only fight on that. If you want to get really good at debate really quick, learn your logical fallacies, and deconstruct their argument to the most basic form as possible while they are making it, then refute it or reframe. Also read ,logic is rarely the best way to win an argument, but your arguments should be backed by it. Use emotion, and learn to trap people with their own words (aka lead them into contradicting themselves).

tbh this is some really good advice for debating people

especially libs

I argued holocaust denial, and pro-dakota pipeline arguments with a half-native at work (South Dakota is where his tribe is from, kek). You should never cuck your arguments, just be clever with how you present them. Always present them from a moral high-ground.

Well the guy was positing that the Muslim ban was unconstitutional. It wasn't until some light research that I learned that it's legal to put a ban if there is a justifiable threat to US. For some reason this never popped in my mind and all I could really come up with was "I don't care if it is or isn't, I just want to keep the US a white majority…"

Ouch. Yeah, debates about laws are definitely tough. I assume he referenced the well known establishment clause for his defense?

Yeah they did it with the Japs. Also remember that you are always arguing to win over the audience and usually not the person you are arguing with. Making your audience laugh will unconsciously allow them to accept your words, and painting your opponent like a fool by being clever will win over more than any amount of logic (unfortunately). Reframing is a very powerful tool though, don't be afraid to pivot back to a stronger turf of morals or ethics, and don't be afraid not to engage him on everything he says. If he says something that you don't care to argue about, just pivot and reframe.

There's a difference between being right and wrong in a debate.

In person, it's usually the person that carries themselves with the most confidence and/or is louder than the other person that wins the debate. This is negro/Arabic debating style. The person could be arguing that 1+1=3 but he wins because style points is what matters more for in person debate.

It's frustrating, but know that it's not always your fault. Messages have to be encoded by you but decoded by the other person. If the person's decoding system is shit (i.e. they're dumb) then there's not much you could have done other than make a simpler to decode message. That's what memetics are really, very simply, concise surgical application of thought.

Trump usually wins on style, apart from being right about everything. That's why he won.

I want to ask something. What would be a good tactic to use against relativists ? They seem to be quite slimy when they spew their nihilistic garbage.

Shouldn't Rach be here?

underrated post

NO, it's always good to debate and confront people so they are afraid of you. I always say that the point of debating is to make your opponent feel like he pissed his pants