How do you debate a liberal when you realize that, even though their ideology is fucked up...

How do you debate a liberal when you realize that, even though their ideology is fucked up, the individual you are arguing with just knows more than you?

I'm in college and one of the most frustrating things is that my roommate, who is the ultimate cuck numale, is still pretty intelligent, and whenever we get into a political argument he basically "wins." Like, he'll just hit me with extremely obscure facts I'm not prepared for, then hammer them in, and when I can't respond he just starts laughing.

BTW the dude has a gf but he constantly has threesomes with another dude.

tl;dr how do you argue with a cuck when he has a higher IQ but you know you're right

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-yrPxAQGzkc
youtube.com/watch?v=sL3SQyK7H5E
youtu.be/Wl7fZH4fX1k
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>tl;dr how do you argue with a cuck when he has a higher IQ but you know you're right

How does it feel to be an inbred right wing retard?

Deconstruction

he distracts you by bringing up different subjects.

hes sound like he debates like a jew, skirt around the actual subject at hand to bait you into giving him the upper hand with "obscure" facts directed at disrupting your train of though

Always a leaf

This is what I do. Not Jewish but the irl tears are delicious

Kill yourself.

That'll show him.

Already posted answer. Being smarter will not land you at the same answer if you start from different presuppositions or experience. Before conscripted I was liberal, now I'm conservative, 138iq goy here. Before serving I had lots of theory inside my head but turned out my picture of the world was really off the mark.

Read more, though it'd be hard to find a none shill news outlet over there. The Economist used to be good for a years subscription before the Rothchilds stepped in turned it into another NYT.

What about the FT?

>tfw this is what i do IRL

but the FUCKING LEAF is right
if OP wasnt an autistic inbred faggot he would easily win arguments

Knowing a slot of information isn't important.

He can read a book about surviving in the forest. But if you've done it fuck what his book says.

You need to learn more. Read more. Become disgustingly well informed on history and current affairs. Also read lots of opinion pieces which might bring up useful facts to use in arguments.

It's a very, very long process, personally I'm not very far through it which is why I rarely argue IRL. I don't want to argue anything unless I'm 100% sure I know what I'm talking about

how is the conscription in belarus anyway?

Wait until he's run out of coke and he's sober, then start talking to him.

>Autistic sniffing

Amazing, except in summer. 39C and humid marshes were a bitch for my unit.

Rote learn some stats. Don't let them skirt. Make them stick to one subject. Don't let them thoughtstop you, call them on bullshit. Read lots more. They spout memes that can easily be btfo if you have the data to counter with. You have it all from the redpill threads. Learn it.

sounds pretty shitty, I can imagine marshes being full of mosquitos and deer flys also

If you can't back up your own opinions with facts, why do you hold those opinions? Because they "feel" right? You're just as bad as the libtards.

Simple, liberals read theory. You do the same. He's not smarter than you it's just accumulated knowledge. You can beat him if you learn some right-wing theory to counter his theory.

call it out as just a debating tactic, personally knowing more trivial doesn't make your point more valid

>the individual you are arguing with just knows more than you?
You seem to be implying that libshits know more than the canned responses their (((professors))) have """taught""" them (aka brainwashing). Or them slandering and name-calling you when they can't think up of lies/bullshit, because their list of canned responses are just enough to fill an index card and because their brains are too melted with all the ecstasy and weed.

You pull off a double standard trap or just plain truth and their argument collapses. Then they resort to name-calling or even try to hit you. When they attack you, don't hold back. Hit them so hard they have a concussion; maybe that will shake all that brainwashing off, or turn them into vegetables. Either way, problem solved.

We were heating tents to 50C at night before we bought a shitton of raptor plates. Not pleasant, but for some reason those memories associate with immense fun.

Give us an example of an obscure fact he uses against and what you guys are going on about in the first place.

sounds like you just lack confidence. arms crossed, chin up, hold your ground but also keep an open mind. really there is no way on winning a debate, its more about reaching a resolution

OP, take an acting class or something. Debating politics is mostly about appearances and charisma. Leftists like to tend toward over-intellectualize things, don't fall in their trap, you should learn to improvise your way out.

>and whenever we get into a political argument he basically "wins."
He's probably tricking you into thinking he wins by asking difficult-to-answer questions that probably aren't really relevant. The most important thing for you to do is to learn to recognize logical fallacies, implicit assumptions of assertions and questions, what is relevant or irrelevant, and that questions aren't arguments. All logical discourse must take a certain path, and anything other than that path, including questions, is irrelevant or a "red herring."

During the discussion, claim incontinence. On each of your many visits to the toilet, check in with Sup Forums to ask for help. Bring new meaning to shitposting.

>anned responses their (((professors))) have """taught""" them

as long as your retarded anti-intellectualism will consist of memes and shit-posting. I see no reason you would win any debate.

How do you know you're right if you can't prove it, dipshit?

read books, educate yourself, do your research
simply believing your ideology is superior means nothing, that's called delusion

>providing actual facts
>debating like a jew

Is the average Sup Forumsack really this retarded?

> Sup Forums
> surviving in the forest

Maybe if the forest was in your back yard. And made of cheetos.

>tfw this is what everyone does with their girlfriends

She started throwing tumblr terms at me during one fight. "Gaslighting". Shit like that.

I had to go look them up, and it really helped sharpen my argument game.

Weird thing is, she still gets mad as fuck and loses arguments with me, despite seemingly knowing exactly what I'm doing.

I'm starting to suspect she does it on purpose to give me an ego boost.

There is 0 point in debating a liberal

The shift must happen from within on its own

Some examples?
You might actually just be wrong and dumb. Just because he's a liberal doesn't mean he can't be right about anything, and vice versa.

If you're getting into an argument about something, you should already know your position. That is, you should be able to trace the support for your conclusion every step of the way back to first principles. With that understanding, "extremely obscure facts" are either unrelated to the discussion, are already countered by something you know, or counter something you know and thereby undermine your conclusion. Your actions from there should be obvious.

To turn this around, why do you have any particular political opinion? If you can't justify it in this manner, do you really believe it?

learn from a master. example, tucker carlson

Try these things:
Be aggressive and take the lead in the conversation: liberals aren't assertive (they're always on over-think mode on) so you'll always have the lead, you just have to avoid pitfalls.
Don't argue on logic alone: in life you need emotional insight and intuition to see the bigger picture -- and liberals almost always lack both.
If they start the usual citation spam just say they can't judge things on their own.
They will always try to take you to a territory they can sound smart because they've invested time reading bullshit.
Grab them by the pussy.

> that's called delusion

Mate. You're posting on Sup Forums, the home of autism and delusion.

Also, this thread is gold.

He's trying to describe Pilpul.

One of the easiest ways to disrupt a competitor is to start slotting in obscure, but undeniably true, facts.

That aren't related to the subject at hand, or at best tangentially related.

>But you see I'm right, yes?

>uh...y-yeah, but

>Come on then, what are you even trying to say

>b-but, nationalism could, y-

>NAPOLEON WAS 5'8

>RIGHT?

>y-yes, but w-wh

>It's undeniable.

>Sure, I guess you're right, but...

And on and on.

Bill Maher does it all the time. I like when he does it too, because he doesn't even try and it works.

youtube.com/watch?v=-yrPxAQGzkc

1:40

It's like turning off a light switch on the dumb brit.

>You know you'e right

Therein lies the problem

Tell us some of the arguments that you have had

if thats true how cone obamas team lost wisconsin?

>To turn this around, why do you have any particular political opinion? If you can't justify it in this manner, do you really believe it?

Probably saw Milo on youtube and now he's Le Ebin Alt Right

He said irrelevant, obscure facts, you fucking subhuman.

You aren't good at debating. If you were, you would never have this problem.

My best recommendation is you debate people online first before you try to argue with people irl. I've become a great debater with Muslims by this tactic alone because I've tried and tested all different kinds of arguments, and I usually know what kind of arguments they'll make.

Also, learn their side as well. Be capable of arguing against Marxism by actually knowing what Marxism is. It'll do you no good to barely understand their philosophy. You need to read, read lots. I personally have to walk usually most every day for about half n hour, so just download a speech, interview or discussion and listen to it. I've absorbed ludicrous amounts of information that way alone.

Also, argue on moral grounds, not logical grounds. Liberals don't respond to logic, they respond to morality.

Don't say:
"minimum wage is bad because it drives up the prices of goods in a market."

say this:
"do you seriously believe that undesirables shouldn't work and should have to pay more for their goods? Because of the minimum wage, you're literally forcing employers to fire people they can't afford, like single mothers and young black people".

Easy stuff, if you need more tips, just ask.

youtube.com/watch?v=sL3SQyK7H5E

It would really help if you could tell us what the argument was and what the debate was about. But I'm sure your friend is some version of an enlightenment faggot and therefore is wrong at a fundamental level.

Educate yourself to compete.

reddit

>the individual you are arguing with just knows more than you?
I never have this problem with Leftists. Read some books, faggot.

basically you're an idiot, and not ready to talk about politics.

golden rules about liberals
1) ALL facts they quote are of dubious sources, often misquoted or misrepresented or straight out fabrications.
2) The lie with ease, the liberal is a creature of lies, they lie about everything and to everyone. The result is they pretty much believe all the lies they tell, making it difficult to argue with them about "facts", they will come at you armed with fake, made up knowledge and then defend it to the death
3) The all failed logic 101; do not expect logical arguments to win, emotional arguments however have a chance.
4) They Ignore reality, depending on how you present indisputable facts, the liberal has the ability to completely ignore reality if they don't like the messenger or how the message is delivered.

So this is how you argue a liberal you REALLY want to convince (this works in a career in sales too)
1) EMPATHIZE - no matter how crazy and stupid they sound you must validate their egos, else they will shut down their ears, and pretend everything you just said was a lie.
EXAMPLE:
LIB: 80% of women are raped by men
CON: 80%! OMG, I didn't know it was that bad. You really openned my eyes. No wonder you're so terrified of Trump winning, there is an epidemic of rape going on. Man all the books I've read claim rape happens to just 3% of women, can you show me where you got that 80% number? I need to know what else I don't know.

2) Deconstruct - once you are "on their side," you can now safely poke holes in their bullshit.
EXAMPLE:
LIB: here is my crazy source!
CON: Wow, I never knew the campus feminist group had the resources to come up with this type of research. My number came from the FBI crime database.

3) Educate - Liberals are non-thinking pack animals, once they've lost confidence in their lies they can be molded
EXAMPLE:
LIB: Y...eah... the FBI huh?
CON: Yeah, using actual crime statistics.

>BTW the dude has a gf but he constantly has threesomes with another dude.
Even if you aren't smart, you don't need to argue anything, being a cuck is just the most pathetic thing to ever be.

are you sure you're not just projecting your own delusion and autism onto the whole board
fuck off

tell him to stay on topic

youtube.com/watch?v=sL3SQyK7H5E

It's cheating to adopt their positions to state yours.

Aw poor dumb as shit murican realized his bullshit has no proper foundation and his believes are built on a pile of soft shit.

Go cry 'pizzagate' or something, that'll show him.

question the fundamental assumptions? if they're wrong no matter what he throws at you he can't win, if he's not wrong then you lose?

>If they start the usual citation spam just say they can't judge things on their own.

Holy fuck I hate it when people do this when I'm arguing

>hey here's this citation from a famous book that's totally relevant
>WOW BRO U GOTTA THINK FOR URSELF!! STAY WOKE >;O

fucking Sup Forumstards

>Is unaware that liberal arts professors are notorious for forcing ideologies on their students

Learn the difference between dialect (facts) and rhetoric (emotional appeal). You only use dialectic, socratic-style debate with people that argue honestly, which libshits are incapable of.

When you argue with a leftist cum dumpster, you simply resort to biting rhetoric. Insult them, make emotional appeals and come to sensationalist conclusions e.g. "I'm a racist? You support pedophilia." It's all they deserve. Try to sway bystanders, not the libshit faggot you are actually speaking to.

Just come up with three facts for each point you have.

Want illegal aliens to fuck off?
>They don't pay taxes but I do.
>Women who cross illegally get raped by coyotes. Stopping illegal immigration will prevent these rapes.
>America accepts 1million immigrants every year. Increasing this number will do harm to our workforce and economy, but it won't improve the problems in Mexico that are causing economic migrants in the first place.
>everyone has a right to immigrate to America, but they must do so legally. That way we get skilled laborers who will contribute to outlet society instead of just asking for handouts.

Then it doesn't fucking matter what your eunuch roommate says. You have your three facts and you can whip them out like a champ.

It's not cheating if you win.

Just to add.

The hardest group of people to argue against are the Marxist intellectual crowd who know way too much, the super geniuses. I can hold my own and usually win, but I used to have a lot of trouble. And no, it's not because they know more.

They're like jelly, they absorb everything you throw at them because they usually manipulate language and have complex diction.

Avoid arguing with them until you've reached a higher level.

It's not adopting their position, it's targeting their nature.

fpbp

You're just retarded OP. Just how intelligent do you think the average Sup Forumsack is?

>this is actually what Sup Forums thinks is going on when they're arguing

This
How smart is he if he lets some other guy fuck his girlfriend?

I've been arguing and putting libs in their places for 20 years. Unlike most of the young pups around here, I grew up in the 80's and had to deal with true commies in college. Arguing freedom and democracy vs marxists was MUCH harder then talking sense into modern day snowflakes, shills and idiots like yourself.

Calm down there, Muhammed.

>he said irrelevant, obscure facts
This is what Sup Forumsacks think a counterargument is

What is it with all these dumb fucjing threads with dumb ass people asking others to make arguments for them so they can at least pretend to show up people who are smarter than them.

Like fuck why are so many of you beta ass faggots so insecure and shit about how stupid y'all queers are that you have to ask others to think for you.


Go read a book and learn some shit in your for once in your life ya worthless sack of shit

Socratic questioning.

>"I'm a racist? You support pedophilia."

lol. My textbook response to all attempts to strawman.

>Yeah, well if you believe "x" and Conspiracy Tard Jones also believes "x" and "y" then you probably support "y" too, and I'll tell you why "y" is wrong.

>Well, I also happen to think pedophilia is wrong. Are you really going to defend pedophilia?

This

It like writing an essay.

Point. Proof. Comment.

This, this, this. I normally lose debates when they get to the way OP described (barrage of trivia until shutdown), but I always win if I can tear down the argument to some abstract shit like the nature of facts.

Not once did he mention "irrelevant". Stop being this dense.

>Debate a liberal
Whoa, slow down there partner. I found your flaw.
Don't debate them, just report them to your local Orpo Wachtmeister. They will be dealt with.

This.

Liberals don't care about logic, reason or facts.

You spew them out after you've already upset them while adopting a superior tone to make them look stupid.

All you have to do is upset them first, and the easiest way to do that is to question their authenticity, generally via concern trolling.

y-yeah!
i-if he's a cuck then you don't actually need to articulate yourself, just keep saying that!

Your examples of empathy is borderline autistic and that is not what deconstruction means

>trouble arguing with Marxists
fucking kek

If you can't defend your position, you should reconsider it, and perhaps change it. Or just say you're not informed on the issue and thus have no opinion on it.

If someone mentions a fact you've never heard before, just say that you'll have to look into that. Don't just accept it, but also don't just deny it either. Actually go look into it, and see if it changes what you think.

Just say "sauce?"

>I can't outsmart a literal numale cuck
>Sup Forums please help me in arguing with people because I don't know how to

Either this is a leftypost or you think this place is your hugbox. Fuck off retard, how pathetic do you feel having to 'ask' how to argue with someone?

I don't care what people here say, Shapiro is based

>1 post by this ID

It's /leftypol/ trolling.

Don't get too serious brah.

It's not even a counterargument. It is simply a reminder to actually read the text. Shill harder; the deflection is painfully obvious.

Liberals are smarter and know more and are always right. Deal with it stormfag

>Either this is a leftypost

>Doesn't know about synonyms or paraphrasing
>someone with a sub-100 I trying to correct me

Liberal insolence is actually quite humorous.

Try picking up a book and reading some serious political writings. Sup Forums can only take you so far, at some point you need to actually put some effort into learning.

Just analyze the statistics and find holes in the statistical analyses that are employed by liberals.

>tl;dr how do you argue with a cuck when he has a higher IQ but you know you're right
kek fucking kek

you do realize this site is satire, right?
no sane person here is unironically a nazi

ITT: The ignorance and illiteracy of Sup Forums's knowledge base and argumentative skill is finally revealed.

Andrew Breitbart has all yoyr answer man. Even though he was Jewish but redpill af. youtu.be/Wl7fZH4fX1k

>He crushes my arguments but I know I'm right
Jesus fucking kek, the average Sup Forumsack here

Pedophiles are overwhelmingly liberal, as are the mentally ill and drug addicts.

...

Kek! This thread is whack

If he wants to use stupid obscure facts, then use experience. His discrete evidence should be no less valid than your personal at that point.

It doesn't even have to be true, these modern nu-cunts are so cucked they'll eat shit to preserve the integrity of feels.

>"Oh my god how can you be racist towards blacks? I just can't even right now! Look at this study from 1973 backed up multiple times and accredited and actually a valuable study and resource!"
>"Niggers raped my muslim tranny single mom democrat refugee friend, it ruined xer life and was a traumatic experience for all of us."
>"Oh I'm so sorry! I hope I didn't offend you!"

Looks like somebody got a little triggered.

Struck a nerve there, buddy?

There was a thread on here a few weeks back where you took a simple empathy test and posted results. The overwhelming majority of takers scored on the spectrum. Imagine that. As for the delusion, all you have to do to see it is read a "pizzagate" or "kek" thread.

So no, I won't fuck off, you delusional autist.