I doubt that most of you are unfamiliar with the common debate tactics of those who oppose our ideals...

I doubt that most of you are unfamiliar with the common debate tactics of those who oppose our ideals. It quickly becomes obvious when watching people like Molyneux or Destiny that they are more interested in 'winning' the debate so as to pander to their fanbases, rather than using it as a tool for two learned people to come together and attempt to arrive at a closer approximation of truth. You also may feel like something is wrong with their arguments, without being able to exactly identify what is making you uncomfortable. It is my goal here to elucidate the ways in which they argue, so that you may more easily reveal their ilk for being the rats that they are.

Overt Oratorical Strategies

This is the most noticeable strategy these kinds of people employ. They will interrupt their opponent constantly, never allowing them the chance to complete a train of thought and fully establish the point they are trying to make. After the interruption, they will try to take control of the narrative and misrepresent the argument the other person was attempting to build. Usually, this misrepresentation brands their opponent with some socially undesirable label like 'conspiracy theorist', 'racist', or one of the many other words that have been constructed just for the purpose of social shaming. The effect of this is twofold - it shifts the ethos of the argument such that they are seen as some virtuous intellectual, while their opponent is seen as a bumbling fool who has no rational basis for his belief.

Another example of this kind of strategy is their treatment of weak arguments as if they counter strong arguments completely. For example, if their opponent were to provide them with evidence that Hispanics commit more violent crime than Whites, they would respond with the argument that more Hispanics are of a younger demographic and that younger people are more likely to commit violent crime. While probably true, it is absurd to think that this accounts for the entire discrepancy between violent crime, especially when the demographic proportionality is taken into consideration (number of Whites compared to number of Hispanics).

Covert Semantic Tactics

A covert semantic tactic is the manipulation of words and phrases to make it seem as though a person has advanced their argument, but has really said nothing of substance. An example of this is the common argument of the form 'x is a social construct'. This is a trivial fact, a truism that they misrepresent to further their argument, usually by asserting that 'because x is a social construct, x has no meaning', but they have skipped the step of substantiating the argument 'social constructs have no meaning' as a true statement. They will often attempt to get around this by way of transvaluation of values, I.E. arbitrary redefinition of words, which they support with the idea 'words only have the meaning we ascribe to them, therefore they are meaningless' yet they continue to alternate between using the word in its original sense and the sense of whatever they have redefined it to mean to support the narrative they have constructed.

Frustratingly, they also tend to use sophisticated tools of debate, like the logical fallacy, in a slipshod fashion. They will brand something a fallacy even if it doesn't actually fit the criteria of one. They also take branding something as a fallacy as meaning they have one the argument, ironically engaging in what is known as the 'fallacy fallacy'. After this, they will halt further discussion on the topic at hand because they feel that they have 'won the battle'.

Faulty Epistemological Appeals

This is a subtler thing to diagnose, you have probably seen it criticized with some version of the 'sweaty I need a source for that' meme. They require a higher standard of evidence for opposing arguments than they do for the beliefs they hold, otherwise their opponent's argument is invalid. The notion of requiring a double blind peer reviewed study for even the most simple claims is absurd, but they require it because they are not capable of constructing arguments on their own, and because they somehow manage to reject the notion of the brain's extremely powerful pattern recognition capabilities. I wonder, if a man were stalking them with a knife, would they require such a study before coming to the conclusion that the man intends to do them harm?

I hope that this has shed some light on the issue and aids the community in their future endeavors.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Attached: cuckstiny.jpg (1280x720, 87.93K)

It's the same over here, except they would be calling everyone a zionist tranny marxist kikes and spam you don't belong here.

There's no space for debate anymore. Just name calling.

Yep. Had a professor like this once in "Humanities". No European information, btw. He would mark down my papers from hight 90s to high 80s because I used "emoji" in my pappers and it was "not becoming of higher education".

I did use spellcheck, tho.

Pretty much, I've mentioned how this faggot constantly avoids whatever the topic actually is and instead argues the semantics of his previous subjective intent, constantly re-writing history to change the context and infinitely move goalposts, never conceding any "loss".
Trying to pigeonhole the conversation to only be from a perspective he is comfortable with.
Applies bizarre one-sided debate etiquette to his opponent, only to turn around and contradict those rules shortly after, asking for sources randomly, then ignoring any need for sources etc…

Cheap shit you mentioned like talking over someone, constantly interrupting, randomly asking for the definition of words that were correctly used.
Claiming to be about facts and logic while at the core of all his arguments are always appeals to emotion, or pure opinion.

Exaggerating minutia of the infinite grey area, always, this is his bread and butter to make the discussion move to meaningless hypothetical nonsense.

He is one of those weasel debate types that are always arguing in bad faith, then it boils down to "hurr who got maddde? :)" which when he argued with people who do that constantly (metokur) was easily trounced.

Strange aside to mention, how he constantly has weird neurotic reaffirmation after any statement "Yeah?" "R-right right?" why does he feel the need to do this, to create an imaginary audience that agrees with what he just said.

Random thought, machine gun spattering of excessive verbiage and zero brevity might be adderall, makes listening to him a chore.

Good shit.
Leftists do this when they hear arguments that conflict with their programming.
This is a sign of moving towards your position.
It is the meaning of words. Semantics is wholly anti-jew and you will destroy all arguments by simply seeking the true and accurate definition of words in their etymological origins.
This is deflection by projection.
Simple outright lies. People who are afraid tell lies.
This is because religion has rotted their brains. Remember, they think they are "chosen by God". Lel.

I ve never seen someone rager harder than destiny when i gave him the 8pool. The reason why someone like destiny which is a smart guy is that is so popular in fact developing a niche market is that they transport their common sense mixed with a certain dose of sophistry to his followers.
The gap here is the common morality, they can only gap a certain distance within. In "my days" an argument was an argument, no rats and no greater commitment. I guess that commitment stems from a multitude of reasons, economic, cultural. That is the great disease of our generation. It is the self investment and the ratting. In a way it is that all those "strawmens" are thrown around with no real substance. It is more like a reaction.

People just say shit they don't comprehend liek "a job is a job is a job" or "out in the real world".

I can't believe i used to take Destiny seriously hahahahahaha

well it's a bit different in this place, there are a lot of people with bad intentions that don't care for arguments and only want to undermine productive discussion

if you aren't a kike tranny zionist marxist, don't take it to heart
you'll find people more open to discussion in red pilling threads

the speech pattern is just an affect of his smugness, he genuinely believes he's in a position to condescend to any opponent because his fanbase has propped him up as some kind of genius

plattitudes serve a purpose, but like you said people don't often understand them and so misuse them


They will be more open until they run out of argument then start calling everyone a kike tranny zionist marxist.

leftist men talk and argue like women

Attached: gossip shame rally ridicule moralizing.png (684x534 56.94 KB, 114.65K)

Attached: 1466213592436.jpg (636x573, 101.35K)

It's more often people who have fallen for the atheism meme and thus have no impetus for contributing to society, rather than those who think they're "chosen by God"

I wonder if the transition of society from male to female thought processes and the degeneration that coincides with it is inevitable
can we escape the cycle?

pic related

Attached: loss of self awareness.png (912x869, 128.06K)


Congrats, user, you discovered the strategy known as 'pilpul'. Jews and commies have been doing this since time immemorial, and the single most famous excerpt from Mein Kampf is about this.


Destiny is the archetypal hick-lib. Just some white trash shitkicker from nebraska with a bastard child who makes a bit of scratch, moves to LA and teams up with Hasan Piker to bilk radlibs out of donations.

You won't have this job for long, you drooling inbred yid.

The problem is not the left, it's the right. Debating for the audience is perfectly fine. People don't want to see ambiguity, they want blood and guts.
Destiny is physically repulsive, with his giant head and progeria body.
Sage destiny threads.

nice sage faggot

America, everyone.

You will die face down in a puddle of blood, jew.

No evidence at all here

Attached: best_tweets_2016.webm (1280x720, 11.18M)

the kike tactics you use to misrepresent people's arguments doesn't work on people above 120 iq, mordecai

I'm white and from the south myself, that's not the point he was trying to make and you know it
did you even read the op?

notice these 2 retards start posting at the same time, be ready for a sharp decline in post quality

Can I ask you what point you thought you were making with this post? Is this just a bot?

Do you often refer to yourself as 'he', user? You might want to get that looked at.

Get a load of these nerds.


the self awareness of a pair of goldfish, how does it feel to add subversion to the list of skills you're a complete failure at?

you wait until after I've pointed it out to pretend you aren't speaking to each other over discord, in fact you can't even bring yourself to properly insult your butt buddy

your speech patterns will always reveal you for the vermin you truly are

Take your meds.

Gradually I began to hate them. Filtered.

you can't reason with the unreasonable, or seek solutions with those who wish (and depend) on your destruction
diplomacy doesn't solve everything
reading about solipsism is interesting

Attached: why do women engage in naxalt.png (892x2158 99.91 KB, 202.67K)

Looks like you are mad that your favourite method of fake argumentation (known as pilpul) has been identified and can now easily be recognised, thus exposing the poster as a jew, or someone following their teachings, such as a Marxist, a zionist, a tranny.
You ate presenting the truth as absurd with your little string of words, hoping by repetitive action to make the thought of using any of those terms in a post cause anxiety "I don't want to be seen as a tinfoil… better just pretend I don't realise that poster is a jew."
Basically the same purpose "tinfoiler" and "flat earther" serve.
You are what op is describing.

And can only get women because of his money or dom women that know they can push him around. Just look at the man, it would've been over for him if it wasn't for his circumstance.

You can't even use proper grammar to elucidate your thoughts. You're a childless Israeli shiksa who gets her kicks off of shitting on white people, and I hope you remember that on your drive home from Tel Aviv tonight.

Non English native is obvious
Molyneux us a kike user and all ecelebs are cancerm

predictable accusation of schizophrenic tendencies
SHAME, RIDICULE, maybe the bad man will go away
when tyrone rapes and kills your sister they day after hector robs you, remember this moment

yeah, the guy that created a thread analyzing jewish tactics is a jew
I hope your asshole prolapses retard

how can you stand existing in a constant inverted state of reality? what you've said is only a reflection of yourself, do you completely lack any semblance of insight?

a true sesquipedalian

and you think he's wrong, how?

Fuck off jew, back to reddit with you.

why is destinys head so fucking big compared to the rest of his boyish body?

Pretty much spot-on description of 'tiny.
A number of his weird debate behaviors and habits make sense when you view it in the context of him being a Starcraft streamer.

'Tiny's true value is in his fans though. They are the most deliciously spergy gaggle of brainlets, perhaps even beating out Sargons' elite corps of dickriders.


I watched this guy back in his SC2 days when Wings of Liberty came out. In one of his streams he ranted about how dumb bitcoin is so I didn't buy it.
… fuck

Hadn't watched Molyneux in a few years and don't really plan on doing so again, but I noticed he had gotten better about cutting people off. Though if he gets super angry he'll keep going back to his old ways. Is this still the case?

Ben Shaprio is a fast talking idiot who knows nothing but because he talks fast people think hes smart

Attached: autist_red_anons.png (552x511, 30.23K)

Beware the Jew-Commie-Criminal Debating Methods: Deny everything, admit nothing. Demand limitless proof and when valid proof is offered claim to be unconvinced and demand more proof. Answer a question with a question. Use a red herring and change the subject. Tell lies. When the argument is lost, attack the credibility of the messenger, and don't acknowledge argument losing statements. Become enraged and use ridicule, mockery and name-calling.

Attached: xdo7fgb2b9yz.jpg (583x880, 68.86K)

You guys got
got the shrill voiced manlet down to a t.


And then the commie jew mod steps in and bans the right winger for "behavior outside the acceptable norms".

The troll (((Molyneux))) doesn't care if you hate him. All he cares is that you click on his youtube and give him a few more internet shekels to spend on his 14 year old bumfuck boyfriend.

Which is really the ringer.
All truths would easily be made evident to any onlooker in forum debates were it not for commie mods banning people for defending certain premises.

However constrained by backlash, some points cannot be defended.

He should have failed you, you fucking autist.

All I see is noise to signal ratio. The best way to shut them down is to treat them like human beings.

Note the pic related "at least I'm useful" argument from leftypol raider last year.

Attached: YuriBezmenovKGBvsleftypol.jpg (3437x3292 171.5 KB, 6.1M)

Many new martial arts being born these days.

One you forgot is the "just throwing this out there"/"one could say" dodge, where he makes a rhetorical point without having to defend it.

Play Magic, that card game. It will teach you all about tempo and the constraints of peer to peer debate. It will do so without revealing your weakness of debate prior to actually understanding formal logic and debate strategies.

The rest you will have to figure out on your own. I took a class on formal logic and debate back in like 2011. I haven't lost a debate since.

his debate with cultured thug is what got me to write the post, he was extremely condescending from the outset

I don't think he would respond well to being treated like a human, he think himself a god. maybe an argument based around his son's now and future well-being would have some effect, but I kind of doubt it considering he left his kid while he went to europe to have threesomes with some guy and his girlfriend

do you have any tips for maintaining your train of thought? When in an argument with someone, my brain will freeze up because I see several ways to refute a point, but I can't decide which is the best for the situation and audience (also having to consider not revealing too much of my power level)

Imo debate is a facade. I doubt neutral parties are interested in watching them, it's just two groups who want to see their guy BTFO the other guy. The debaters don't change their minds, the viewers don't change their minds, neutrals aren't listening. Pointless.



whataboutism strikes again smh lol

absolutely braindead

it's worth it if we convince even one person to our side

Tell me, rabbi, how can we improve this site for you?