- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
You see that dude online and he is posting all kinds of lies. So you engage this dude in a debate but you slipped up and looked stupid. I have debated many people over the last 3 years and I rarely lose them and this guide will show you how to truly destroy that guy once for all.
Firstly you will need principles before settling into the argument. The same way that engineers and physicists use first principles (fundamental laws of physics) to accurately and precisely make generalised predictions, you will use first principles to start off. Luckily there is only one you need to know and that is that you must remain objective and factual as opposed to subjective and opinionated. Your goal is to present the facts in the argument that undermine what the opponent says. The reason being is that there is a fine indistinguishable line between being opinionated and soapboxing gibberish and that it is very hard, almost impossible arguing against hard facts. You must not differentiate being opinionated and soapboxing gibberish.
Before engaging the debate you must verify that what you believe has indeed a factual basis. If it is completely subjective than debate is a waste of time, this is why I don't like weabs who seriously and furiously debate over which anime is superior because they go round in circles and it takes forever. This requires digging up some evidence on primary sources to present to your opponent. For example If I want to assert that making self-defence illegal will cause more harm than good I can go on nationmaster.com and show the raw crime statistics of countries that have made self-defence illegal.
When engaging your opponent, they will often use what I call "subjective parameters", they are concepts/words used in debate by the opponent with vague definitions. When you see your opponent use subjective parameters, burden them to provide the objective definition of that term. They will either not be able to or if they are able to, it easily sets them up for humiliation and they will look dishonest. This also means that every word you use must have an objective definition, because your opponent can use this tactic against you if you don't have these defensive measures in place.
Once successfully employing these tactics, the opponent will be exposed as a liar and in the process of trying to regain their reputation they go full lolcow. Here is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wns_5c03JcM
Now, this of least importance but is worth mentioning. Do not insult your opponent. Proving your opponent is a liar, is more humiliating then autistic name calling will ever be. Because once you do call him names, you will look like a 12 year old boy.
Firstly you will need principles before settling into the argument. The same way that engineers and physicists use first principles (fundamental laws of physics) to accurately and precisely make generalised predictions, you will use first principles to start off. Luckily there is only one you need to know and that is that you must remain objective and factual as opposed to subjective and opinionated. Your goal is to present the facts in the argument that undermine what the opponent says. The reason being is that there is a fine indistinguishable line between being opinionated and soapboxing gibberish and that it is very hard, almost impossible arguing against hard facts. You must not differentiate being opinionated and soapboxing gibberish.
Before engaging the debate you must verify that what you believe has indeed a factual basis. If it is completely subjective than debate is a waste of time, this is why I don't like weabs who seriously and furiously debate over which anime is superior because they go round in circles and it takes forever. This requires digging up some evidence on primary sources to present to your opponent. For example If I want to assert that making self-defence illegal will cause more harm than good I can go on nationmaster.com and show the raw crime statistics of countries that have made self-defence illegal.
When engaging your opponent, they will often use what I call "subjective parameters", they are concepts/words used in debate by the opponent with vague definitions. When you see your opponent use subjective parameters, burden them to provide the objective definition of that term. They will either not be able to or if they are able to, it easily sets them up for humiliation and they will look dishonest. This also means that every word you use must have an objective definition, because your opponent can use this tactic against you if you don't have these defensive measures in place.
Once successfully employing these tactics, the opponent will be exposed as a liar and in the process of trying to regain their reputation they go full lolcow. Here is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wns_5c03JcM
Now, this of least importance but is worth mentioning. Do not insult your opponent. Proving your opponent is a liar, is more humiliating then autistic name calling will ever be. Because once you do call him names, you will look like a 12 year old boy.
