How you argue with someone who's only argument is "educate yourself"

Some liberal weasel decided to tell me I was wrong posting workforce participation statistics and that the data was skewed. I ask to him to explain himself. His response was "educate yourself". 16 paragraphs later his argument was still "educate yourself". He then got personal. How do you deal with idiots like this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU
youtube.com/watch?v=lT1X0VOf--k
anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Educate yourself OP

Tell them to cite their sources.

>How do you deal with idiots like this?
I don't

So in other words you got BTFO and came crying to Sup Forums like a bitch?

Typical.

>How do you deal with idiots like this?

You don't.

Same as anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers.
Some people just aren't worth debating with.

Most climate change deniers aren't denying that the climate is actually changing they're denying that we should give a shit.

No, they are denying science and just go with "muh feels".
Same as liberals arguing "wage gaps".

I did, "Im not going to educate you, educate yourself" He could not come up with a valid argument.

Xe's not the person you need to be convincing, but rather the people standing around you guys or lurking online while you are debating. You brought forth some evidence, tell the person to bring forth some of their own. If they can't do that, but tell you to educate yourself, they are obviously retarded and you won.

Educate yourself.

>"muh feels"

They don't deny historical temperature trends, they deny the future projection models. How could you trust those things anyways; there are a dozen of them and they are all over the fucking place.

>Tell them to cite their sources.
>"Im not going to educate you, educate yourself"

This is the worst shit ever. You can accuse the person of just believing whatever their favorite source says without double checking, but that will just get into a whole other argument about the validity of their favorite source.

...

It's funny becasue I knew these science deniers would get triggered.

>How you argue with someone who's only argument is "educate yourself"
Punch them in the pussy.

Probably because the science being referred to looks a lot more like a pagan religion than science.

That's also what anti-vaxxers say.

My whole family used to argue like this.

It was the most frustrating thing ever.

But vaccines have proven history. The "projected climate change" doesn't have proven history because it's a future projection, obviously. We're not climatologists and we cannot independently verify the models.

So we really only have two choices:
1. believe what the climatologists say.
2. don't believe what the climatologists say.

Under most circumstances I always taken what scientists say on faith, however I am very suspicious of climate science because it's become a political weapon, just like college education or mainstream media.

Tell them they're fucking a white male.

There's a few differences. Vaccinations have a proven track record of effectiveness against a real threat where as reducing carbon emissions is just a theoretical cure to an imaginary (at this point) threat.

...

You gotta educate yourself in liberal tactics OP
The left never has an argument, what they're looking for is an attack on you or your character
ie:
>you posted X so you must hate Y
Never defend yourself because that's what they want. They want to put you in a corner that you cant get out of without getting mad and fighting at their level or quitting.
In both cases, they win.

You gotta deflect it and if possible turn it on them
>this is a discussion about X, you bringing up Y suggests you have some problem with them

Any fuhrer cries of 'educate yourself' only serves to make them look retarded. As long as no one puts you in the corner, you win.
They got nothing.

Just call them a cunt. Arguing with someone like that really isn't worth your time.

Reason, logic and coherent thoughts are not something that belongs with that lower nu male class, and leftists.

You using that is like using a firepoker at the ocean. Its kinda pointless.

If you want to do some mental damage to these cretins, you should try to overload their amygdala instead.

as they are more simple creatures than you, it should be fairly easy.

Watch this video to get a clue about their nature.

youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU

Tell them the reason for acquiring knowledge is to share it and use it.

If they cannot do either they have learned nothing.

FPBP

Checked

Ask him "Is that how you liberal faggots beg to suck dick?"

Thats how you let them win you stupid autist. The moment you start insulting them or get bad, they win. Because now they are the bigger person.

This.
Let them attack you personally, respond only with facts and evidence, and the viewers will notice.

>Win the crowd, and we win our freedom

youtube.com/watch?v=lT1X0VOf--k
The Internet let's you do this ^^ without risking physical confrontations

A. FUCKING. LEAF. Next thing you're going to tell me is that "if you kill your enemy, he wins". FUCK YOU, I FUCKING HATE YOUR KIND.

I substantiate that argument by ensuring that I am better than you. 100% Like not even joking everyone on pol is a fucking failure.

Remind him he's fucking a WHITE MALE, and that IT'S 2016 and to CHECK HIS PRIVILEGE

but you never have facts or evince or loosely based evidence that has been refuted.

Conservatives have no argument ever

This.
The one that rages and goes on a tantrum is the one who lost.

Not an argument

Drop it, trashy cunts like that aren't worth anyone's time.

He's right though, if you show anger or lose your shit, they claim superiority over you. In their eyes, you are an unstable child.

Pay attention to the way Trump debates. It's extremely important that he doesn't lose his cool, even when he is being aggressive. He must always maintain a level of amused superiority. When he fails, he comes off like a ranting child or lunatic as seen in the first presidential debate.

>paragraphs later

You can't argue with them online. Liberals tend to argue a lot like women, which means whoever does the best job of convincing people they are right is the one who wins, regardless of the actual facts. Not to mention posting on social media is a one way ticket to unemployment.

arguments can not be won
arguments are opinion vs opinion
an opinion can not be a fact
!!!!!!
jews!!!!

But why does asking liberal "is that how you liberals beg for cock?" is being angry? There's nothing wrong with insults, as long as he can't say anything back and you can always beat the shit out of that special snowflake. Show him how arguments used to be solved.

Use the Stefan meme
>Not
>An
>Argument

It's actually incredibly effective.

People like to use all sorts of rhetorical tricks and this one establishes that you can't break the rules of an argument with that rhetoric.

latvian savages.

>lives in his Sup Forums safe space
>accuses liberals of acting like women

Sad!

You know what's also a really girly thing to do? Worship dominant men. That makes you a pantywaisted faggot, kiddo.

Most climate change models have over estimated the total temperature change. Anyone who disagrees that climate change is urgent is labeled a climate change denier.

The same class of people who pushed the American eugenics movement 70 years ago under the guise of "over-population" and how urgent of an issue that was are the same people pushing climate change reforms. Is it happening yes, basically nobody debates that; is it critical to the planet and leading to disaster, well no one is certain.

The same people that are against animal testing, against "GMOs", gluten free and generally fucking retarded are the same people pushing the "catastrophic climate change" model.

Educate yourself you mongrel.

>"is that how you liberals beg for cock?"

There is a very, very fine line between confidently aggressive and raving lunatic. You've got to have exactly the right posture and facial expression when you say something like that. Trump is a master at this; most people are not. It's a risky move.

An absolutely great case to study is the Pence / Kaine debate. Pence doesn't have the same level of bantz that Trump has, but he can still win by acting passively amused and treating Kaine like a petulant child.

If being a cuck is the alternative, I rather be savage. There is nothing wrong with violence.

If this argument is online, say you are black and call him a racist for disagreeing with you.

When I was memeing for TRUMP, I setup a few false flag liberal social media accounts to attack the democrats from their exposed left flank.

RACISTS BTFO AGAIN!!!

Tell him that he is making a logical fallacy and that if he has no support for his claims he is not making an argument.

Who's more foolish the fool or the one who argues with him?

>Some liberal weasel decided to tell me I was wrong posting workforce participation statistics and that the data was skewed.

It is skewed. Workforce participation rate is a troll's way of making shitty arguments because the unemployment rates are down.


Workforce participation means anyone over 16 years old no matter what. That means kids in high school, college, NEETs, retired people, stay-at-home moms, retards and the unemployed.

Workforce participation rate was never above 70% because it's literally impossible. You would have to eat old people and force teenagers to go work

This is a good link an user posted a few days ago:

anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/

...

Tell him that he's the one making the claim, and so should provide evidence to back it up, as the onus is not on you to find the evidence because you may not find what he found. "Whatever claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

Why do you think the communists killed millions of their own? They were not all dissidents. Some were just too brainwashed, they became a danger to anyone around them spouting Critical Theory at all hours of the day.

Because they don't want to have to explain themselves because they know they have no real leg to stand on and it's mainly out of a knee jerk reaction learned behavior.

It's the same reason why I'll know dudes from years and when they come out they start hanging with more gay people and fag queens and over a relatively short amount of time they dress different, talk different, and act different while those who just continued their normal MO but tried to date dudes basically stayed the same.

It's a learned behavior and if you ask why they said it or did it their logic and speech will go right out the window into retard land. Like if you asked a dog why he likes to eat his own shit or throw up then lick your face.

>""refuted""

Wew lad