- Joined
- Mar 22, 2019
Just use the @Ron /pol/ method:
Libtards BTFO epic style. Works every time. Wojak soyboy macro optional.
Libtards BTFO epic style. Works every time. Wojak soyboy macro optional.
The Definitive Guide to Destroying your opponent in a debate
- Thread starter maalikthefakemuzzie
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
I'd argue that OP is not nearly as much of a faggot as everyone is saying, but that he misses the point.
In a subjective debate, one which is about morals or opinions, you will never be able to rely upon definitive proof and as such your only goal is to present your philosophy clearly. In that sense the things your opponents bring up are not actually relevant, only the things that you bring up are. Before outlining your side of the debate, you must think it through from whatever your own big idea is (for me, usually personal freedom, equality before the law and, in an international setting, the rational defense of self-interests) and apply that to the specific subject at hand.
You cannot let your opponent set the terms and definition for the debate, if he tries to do so in a way that does not serve your argument you must push back and set your own. For example, if I am in an argument about healthcare and my opponent tries to set the measurement at something like total cost to the nation or average life expectancy, I would push back and set my side of the debate in terms of personal freedom. People who already were in agreement with my opponent will not be swayed, but I don't care, I am there to present my argument for people who are inclined to think like I do- they will agree with me.
Don't get dog-piled, if you are anything like me, you will seldom find yourself in a position where everyone agrees with you, indeed, if you are debating then there at least has to be someone out there who doesn't. If too many people reply to you, too many for you to talk to simultaneously, ignore some of them and if too many points are made by even one person, ignore some of those too. Point by point refutations make you look like a pedant and are a sure sign that you are losing the debate. You'd be better off waving off entire paragraphs as "irrelevant to my point of view" or not addressing them at all than going into a line by line quotation of your opponent. If forced to pick and choose, you are better off responding to a "good" opponent, rather than a "bad" one. Nobody cares if you can dance around the retard, his posts are probably not even being read by the other side. If you really are right, then it should not matter how good your opponent is at debating, since you are presenting different philosophies anyway.
Use your own words in the debate, literally that is, use your own side's words. If you are arguing for traditional sexuality, don't use a term like "cisgender", use "normal." If arguing for climate action, call your opponents a "denier" rather than a "doubter". If called out on any of this, point out the bullshit behind your opponent's terms. Doesn't matter which side you are on, your opponent's terms are wrong and you should be able to say why they are. Never stop using your own terms, even if your opponent asks you to. If ordered to, walk out of the debate or stop posting, as you will not be allowed to win. Let silence be your victory, people on your side will be silently furious at your silencing and undecideds will not like it either.
Don't call out logical fallacies, or at least don't call them out by name. Nobody cares that you know the terms, and a lot of so-called fallacies are entirely relevant to the debate. If the debate really is about competing philosophies, for instance, then there is nothing wrong with making an argument that could be called a slippery slope. The whole point of the Overton Window is that the slippery slope is real, anyway.
On the other hand, there are a few things that you should always call out. Never miss an opportunity to point out that your opponent's source believes in conspiracies (truthers, Holocaust denial, etc.,) engages in blatant buffoonery, (Laura Loomer storming stages, James O'Keefe wearing a wire in a nursing home, etc.) or is a political extremist (actual Nazis or Communists only.) You really can just say, assuming its actually true, "your source is a card carrying Communist and thus I don't give a damn what he has to say." Go ahead, try it, it works. If your opponent mis-interprets a source, such as presenting a source about deaths going down while claiming that it shows deaths going up, always jump on this. It makes him look like a fool, it shows you reading his material and everyone on both sides will be on your side, provided you aren't somehow reading it wrong yourself. And finally, if your opponent changes arguments in the middle of the debate, either through forgetting his points or being forced to concede ground by you, always be sure to note it aloud, least your audience did not notice the shift (its almost always a defeat flag, good job!)
In general its not a good idea to let your opponent speak for you, and you should never let your opponent assign someone else's beliefs to you, especially if they are not actually yours. Its easy for both you and your opponent to conflate each other with a general caricature of the other side. To an extent this is okay, but if your opponent is going to assign a belief you do not have to you, and tell you that you are wrong on it, you will have to note to him that you do not believe it yourself, bring up the fact that you never mentioned a thing like that in this or any other debate, etc. A standard line would be, "I do not know why you would say that I believe __ as I do not believe so and have never said as such." You don't need to spend much time on it, leave it as an aside in one of your other points rather than as a whole point on its own, but make sure you do it.
Do not get provable facts wrong. This includes things that are not yet provable, but will be in the near future. Examples of this include going against conventional wisdom on next cycle's election results, on the state of the economy in three months, on who will win the Big XII championship, or on who will be getting the next promotion in your office. Your underlying points are bigger than any one decision but if you tie them to that, and end up being wrong, then you look like a fool and have only given negative credibility to your argument. If talking about things like the above, always couch them in conditionals, but be warned that the conditions you have set will then be judged by your opponents in light of what ends up occurring. Many Trump supporters here, for instance, said the blue wave would be a joke. But it wasn't, and now they look less credible when talking about Trump's upcoming slam dunk 2020 run. A coworker of mine discounted and even laughed at someone's promotion opportunities because he did not have training or background in the open position, but he got that job and now the laugher's argument looks like shit- we all now know that job-skills doesn't count for anything in our company. This harkens back to the very first point I made, you are debating about morals or principles far bigger than any single event and thus tying yourself down to a specific actual result can only hurt you, much better to keep it in the realm of theory.
And finally, do not make an argument in an area that will immediately ban you for it. Its not worth your time and you will not be able to get your point out convincingly in a single post. If you do plan on getting banned/escorted out then save your stinger moment for the end. Let your silencing be the cherry on top of your great argument, instead of just a cherry.
In a subjective debate, one which is about morals or opinions, you will never be able to rely upon definitive proof and as such your only goal is to present your philosophy clearly. In that sense the things your opponents bring up are not actually relevant, only the things that you bring up are. Before outlining your side of the debate, you must think it through from whatever your own big idea is (for me, usually personal freedom, equality before the law and, in an international setting, the rational defense of self-interests) and apply that to the specific subject at hand.
You cannot let your opponent set the terms and definition for the debate, if he tries to do so in a way that does not serve your argument you must push back and set your own. For example, if I am in an argument about healthcare and my opponent tries to set the measurement at something like total cost to the nation or average life expectancy, I would push back and set my side of the debate in terms of personal freedom. People who already were in agreement with my opponent will not be swayed, but I don't care, I am there to present my argument for people who are inclined to think like I do- they will agree with me.
Don't get dog-piled, if you are anything like me, you will seldom find yourself in a position where everyone agrees with you, indeed, if you are debating then there at least has to be someone out there who doesn't. If too many people reply to you, too many for you to talk to simultaneously, ignore some of them and if too many points are made by even one person, ignore some of those too. Point by point refutations make you look like a pedant and are a sure sign that you are losing the debate. You'd be better off waving off entire paragraphs as "irrelevant to my point of view" or not addressing them at all than going into a line by line quotation of your opponent. If forced to pick and choose, you are better off responding to a "good" opponent, rather than a "bad" one. Nobody cares if you can dance around the retard, his posts are probably not even being read by the other side. If you really are right, then it should not matter how good your opponent is at debating, since you are presenting different philosophies anyway.
Use your own words in the debate, literally that is, use your own side's words. If you are arguing for traditional sexuality, don't use a term like "cisgender", use "normal." If arguing for climate action, call your opponents a "denier" rather than a "doubter". If called out on any of this, point out the bullshit behind your opponent's terms. Doesn't matter which side you are on, your opponent's terms are wrong and you should be able to say why they are. Never stop using your own terms, even if your opponent asks you to. If ordered to, walk out of the debate or stop posting, as you will not be allowed to win. Let silence be your victory, people on your side will be silently furious at your silencing and undecideds will not like it either.
Don't call out logical fallacies, or at least don't call them out by name. Nobody cares that you know the terms, and a lot of so-called fallacies are entirely relevant to the debate. If the debate really is about competing philosophies, for instance, then there is nothing wrong with making an argument that could be called a slippery slope. The whole point of the Overton Window is that the slippery slope is real, anyway.
On the other hand, there are a few things that you should always call out. Never miss an opportunity to point out that your opponent's source believes in conspiracies (truthers, Holocaust denial, etc.,) engages in blatant buffoonery, (Laura Loomer storming stages, James O'Keefe wearing a wire in a nursing home, etc.) or is a political extremist (actual Nazis or Communists only.) You really can just say, assuming its actually true, "your source is a card carrying Communist and thus I don't give a damn what he has to say." Go ahead, try it, it works. If your opponent mis-interprets a source, such as presenting a source about deaths going down while claiming that it shows deaths going up, always jump on this. It makes him look like a fool, it shows you reading his material and everyone on both sides will be on your side, provided you aren't somehow reading it wrong yourself. And finally, if your opponent changes arguments in the middle of the debate, either through forgetting his points or being forced to concede ground by you, always be sure to note it aloud, least your audience did not notice the shift (its almost always a defeat flag, good job!)
In general its not a good idea to let your opponent speak for you, and you should never let your opponent assign someone else's beliefs to you, especially if they are not actually yours. Its easy for both you and your opponent to conflate each other with a general caricature of the other side. To an extent this is okay, but if your opponent is going to assign a belief you do not have to you, and tell you that you are wrong on it, you will have to note to him that you do not believe it yourself, bring up the fact that you never mentioned a thing like that in this or any other debate, etc. A standard line would be, "I do not know why you would say that I believe __ as I do not believe so and have never said as such." You don't need to spend much time on it, leave it as an aside in one of your other points rather than as a whole point on its own, but make sure you do it.
Do not get provable facts wrong. This includes things that are not yet provable, but will be in the near future. Examples of this include going against conventional wisdom on next cycle's election results, on the state of the economy in three months, on who will win the Big XII championship, or on who will be getting the next promotion in your office. Your underlying points are bigger than any one decision but if you tie them to that, and end up being wrong, then you look like a fool and have only given negative credibility to your argument. If talking about things like the above, always couch them in conditionals, but be warned that the conditions you have set will then be judged by your opponents in light of what ends up occurring. Many Trump supporters here, for instance, said the blue wave would be a joke. But it wasn't, and now they look less credible when talking about Trump's upcoming slam dunk 2020 run. A coworker of mine discounted and even laughed at someone's promotion opportunities because he did not have training or background in the open position, but he got that job and now the laugher's argument looks like shit- we all now know that job-skills doesn't count for anything in our company. This harkens back to the very first point I made, you are debating about morals or principles far bigger than any single event and thus tying yourself down to a specific actual result can only hurt you, much better to keep it in the realm of theory.
And finally, do not make an argument in an area that will immediately ban you for it. Its not worth your time and you will not be able to get your point out convincingly in a single post. If you do plan on getting banned/escorted out then save your stinger moment for the end. Let your silencing be the cherry on top of your great argument, instead of just a cherry.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
all you have to do is call them the n-word and tell them that you hope they get raped by sand niggers
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2014
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2014
What I do is debate earnestly and when I lose just claim that I was trolling the entire time and declare victory. I have never lost using this tactic.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
Whack off like a Nigger in church.
No matter what they argue I still nuttt and thus will always be the true winner.
No matter what they argue I still nuttt and thus will always be the true winner.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2017
See what you've done here is exactly what you warned against, you let the opponent set your terms. Now y'all are stuck on that insults tier of the pyramid and you'll never get out.
You could've at least slapped back with a "you first" instead.
- Joined
- May 1, 2017
Remember to never break eye contact to show true dominance.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2014
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2017
Sexual Chocolate
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2019
DDBCAE CBAADCBE
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2019
This is why Andrew Jackson never lost an argument.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2018
As a big-brained person, I know calling my opponents a bunch of white niggers is a very politically savvy thing to do
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
Don't argue about anything important anywhere on the Internet if your goal is changing the other person's view. That will never happen because nobody enters these debates with any plan to concede the point no matter how hard they lose. Psychology doesn't work that way.
Instead, your target is the audience. People change their minds based not on debates they have had themselves, but on those they see between third parties. This is because they have much less ego invested in one particular outcome.
So adopt tactics that play well to neutrals. Be pleasant and courteous and keep your cool. Let your opponent damage themselves if they flip out but do not gloat or obviously goad them.
And most importantly of all, your rhetoric should come from your opponent's premises if possible. Presenting arguments that, for example, capitalism is the best hope for raising people out of poverty or that feminism harms equality will deprive your opponent of much of their rhetorical weaponry. Arguing from your opponent's premises is devastating because it means they can't try to demonise or smear you, or attack your values. It's also much more likely to win over neutrals, which is the real point of online debate.
Instead, your target is the audience. People change their minds based not on debates they have had themselves, but on those they see between third parties. This is because they have much less ego invested in one particular outcome.
So adopt tactics that play well to neutrals. Be pleasant and courteous and keep your cool. Let your opponent damage themselves if they flip out but do not gloat or obviously goad them.
And most importantly of all, your rhetoric should come from your opponent's premises if possible. Presenting arguments that, for example, capitalism is the best hope for raising people out of poverty or that feminism harms equality will deprive your opponent of much of their rhetorical weaponry. Arguing from your opponent's premises is devastating because it means they can't try to demonise or smear you, or attack your values. It's also much more likely to win over neutrals, which is the real point of online debate.