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

You already shitposted this cunt
Left faggots leave

Bump for help

Counter with extreme obscure facts and question his at the same time. Just because he has the higher IQ doesn't mean you can't beat him in a discussion. He just took more time to research supporting facts - and let's be honest - you an find supporting facts for the most obscure shit.

Start reading about certain thematics you want to defend and invest time in research.

Or use pleb 101 discussion tricks:
- Try to end every statement with a question, this will but him under pressure and make you lead the conversation.
- See where he gets emotional and bring him out of his rational argumentation with triggering emotional responses.
- Try to trivialize his arguments infront of others and turn his argumentation ad absurdum.
- Break into his sentence - constantly.
- Authority arguments are always great, bring in a Dr. Prof. and let him try to argue against that with his own facts. Than ridicule him for being a smartass against a doctorate.
- Give a false quote from a really well known person and ask him if he "Don't even know that quote?" ridicule him again,
- Use the theory-practic argument. Say his argument may work in theory but not in direct application.
- Ad hominem a lot.
- Use a lot of accusations.
- Confuse him with lot of boxed sentences with a mass of "difficult" words that don't necessarily have to make sense in each other.
- Block with a wall of speech - talk a lot and don't stop at all. Make him fall into your word and then criticize him for it.
- Confusing short and explanatory questions while he talks. Like: "Why do you think that?" - "How do you come to that conclusion?" just annoying stuff that will have to make him go deeper and deeper into explanations.
- Plausibility arguments. If you have a weak argument play it out like it's common knowledge. "Someone like you should know that [...]" - "Everyone agrees on [...]"

And a lot more.

losing a debate doesn't mean you're wrong

winning a debate doesn't mean you're right

Why did you post this again you insipid little faggot

I think you're just dumb dude.

You keep asking questions about what he's saying until he realizes there's no basis in truth for his propositions.

Socrates never lost a debate.

You don't need to be intelligent to win a discussion. You just need more dirty tricks.

why would you be sure you're correct if he knows more than you?

seek unrustlement

Realize that debate isn't how you sway people's opinions, and subvert his social group anonymously. Make false-flag comments advocating stalinism, pretend to be gay and defend muslims, etc.

When your enemy has you outgunned, use guerrilla tactics.

Why do you keep posting this

Learn more dipshit.

Why don't you, idk, try to research facts that support your ideology? You can't be right if even the cuckest cuck can defeat you with those tactics.

This is my first post, I'm just looking for ideas user

Claim to be gay and support Islamic tolerance of murdering gays. Because your life is not worth being an islamaphobe.

Don't listen to these kikes:
(the pleb 101 "tricks")
They're the reason that discourse and dialogue in the first world has fallen to shit. The only people who use these tactics are those who don't have an argument worth stating, and is a common tactic for brainlet liberals.

When your room mate quotes facts:

A. ask him about the quality of his sources and the conditions/circumstances used to figure out these "statistics"

B. make sure they're relevant in the first place. If he's bringing up facts only tangentially related to the argument, then they're not useful and should be discarded.

and C. Do some research of your own. If you're truly passionate about a subject, then you have no excuse to know little about it. Find yourself some credible sources for your claims and go to town.

Appeal to self-preservation tactics, and by that I mean put him in the situation of the debate of the long term ramifications of the policies he imbibes, put his own potential offspring in the spotlight.

Do not use the short term draw, you have to hit him hard with the long term effects of his choices.

saw this post 2 times already

All of this makes you look like a child that can't debate respectfully which makes your side even harder to believe in.

Real advice: Get educated, know more shit.

Brainlet detected

You one of them Jews left behind in Germany?

illuminating post famalam

I've never met a leftist who was legitimately intelligent, a lot who think they are and use big words but nothing of logical substance come's out of their mouths.

you should begin to question your assumptions.

1 - you admit you're more ignorant
2 - you admit you have less knowledge
Therefore, common sense should tell you you're probably wrong.

>BTW the dude has a gf but he constantly has threesomes with another dude.
See? That's irrelevant. You're not a smart person, just give up.

This is actually a pretty subtle troll post. Argue from the point of view where the leftist has already won.

10/10

Educate yourself to his level retard. If leftists are beating you in reasoned debate, that's on you

come on, he has it hard. he's probably trying to defend nonsense.

if he gets educated, he'll probably change his view, and we lose one more. just shut up.

don't focus so much on what the specific facts are in a subject. sure, statistics are useful in debating and proving a point, but the philosophical underpinnings of political discourse are infinitely more fruitful. Leftists are mired in their own ideology. They refuse to actually look into philosophies that differ from their own, that is where you attack. If you keep the topic at a level that is arguing the philosophy of the matter rather than the actual matter, the leftist only has one lens to look through

>Implying you "win" a discussion by being fair
All of this is a really great way to improve your own point in any discussion. If you apply it correctly you can cry as much as you want about "how" that makes me look like a child or how your argument is correct and I'm just being mean.

If you lose credibility you lose the discussion and the argument. It's that easy. It's what politicans do all the time.

what you're trying to say is that:
in theory we (the right) are right.
in practic they (the leftists) are right.

Correct?

you suck at debating

why did you repost this? Do you CTR fags just randomly repost popular posts to 'draw' attention?
This thread would be a terrible thing to repost for your agenda, it will contain helpful tips against you.

No.

This tactic works against the right also. Basically the facts cannot be argued, they are a reflection of reality. However, the interpretation of the facts and what they mean is open to discussion. Leftists have a one track mind, their politics are their dogma and anything counter is heresy. For example, crime statistics show that poverty and crime have a direct relationship. Now, we cannot argue against the fact that reducing poverty tends to reduce crime. However, we can argue about the most effective or beneficial way to reduce poverty overall. Leftists want to argue that if you shift the goalposts and increase wages without proper control over inflation, poverty will disappear, their ideology takes over here while you're still trying to process the data. What I'm saying is accept the data, even if it is wrong, and argue from there.

focus on the central point of the argument, always be mindful of moved goalposts, hell just look at the Sup Forums sticky... It's still there at the top you know...

He's not winning the debate. He just think he won the debate and you're too much of a pussy to break off friendship with this asshole.

Hans has a point. OP didn't say "I have some topics, this is what I have after looking, how can I look better to find more," he said "I have a person I want to debate (read:argue for epeen), how do I win?"

Plus he already qualified it with "you can do your own research, or use these pleb tactics." He didn't say you must use either but instead outlined them.

So pls, stop being cunty about hearing how to win.

>Leftists have a one track mind, their politics are their dogma and anything counter is heresy
I think they view rightists by the same lens

>For example, (...) What I'm saying is accept the data, even if it is wrong, and argue from there.

What you describe the leftists do is called putting the data into context. Not conclude, for instance that

Niggers are prone to crime.

when the reality is

Poor people are prone to crime

The data is accepted, it's just not interpreted freely

>even if it is wrong, and argue from there.
That's autistic. No wonder the leftists win us everytime.

labels are also part of the problem. putting everything in the same bag. most leftists are retarded. and usually the ones given space in the mainstream. some leftists are intelligent, and their point of view is very interesting.

it's probably the case with OP's roommate.

There was this super fucking awesome redpilled screencap where some dude literary dissected how liberate argue, every fucking one of them. Genius that one.

Funnily enough he provided nice back how to 101 how to win an argument but the whole point of that infographic was simple... don't fucking argue with leftists. Ever.

>Funnily enough he provided nice back how to 101 how to win an argument but the whole point of that infographic was simple... don't fucking argue with leftists. Ever.

ignore the reality, yes. who can you lose if you don't play?

I agree that many on the right are prone to be dogmatic in their mental processes. The point is that in order to argue effectively, you cannot allow yourself to become mired in your own ideologies and must be able to adapt and use different lenses to view the world.

To your second point, yes. Many people will try to argue facts in a vacuum. I ran into this a lot in university. Many people believe accepting the fact means admitting defeat, when all it does is gives you and your opponent a stable platform from which to argue. Arguing political points almost always comes down to who is more able to conjoin context with philosophy.

To your third point about labels, again, you hit the nail on the head. Many people will attempt to use buzzwords that try to sum up complex ideas in soundbite form. I run into this problem a lot. It's useful to agree to some terms before the debate even begins, to iron out the labeling and details. I don't know how many times I've been derailed from a good point simply by the semantic bait my opponent has muddled me in.

There was nothing there about ignoring reality, quite contrary. If you argue with leftist enough, experience and reality tells you its a fools errand.

Don't twist my shit and project.
You sound like a lefty.

Its very easy i have several friends that are libs , and i just talk to them like a 8 year old and that usually does the trick .

I seen libs actually talk to right wingers this way, there is nothing more infuriating when you talk to someone in his mid 20' who acts like 15yo hormone blasted teen and they talk down on YOU like you are the immature one.

LOGIC NEVER WINS ANYBODY OVER AND HAS NEVER BEEN EVEN SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT as Sup Forums is now realising, normal people are manipulated to FEEL a certain way through a STORY by clever and devious people in many different ways on many different levels for many different reasons

>There was nothing there about ignoring reality
quote:
>don't fucking argue

>You sound like a lefty.
And that of course makes you afraid. You sound like the OP, pissing your pants already.

Bunch of cowards.

Due to easy access to information, people's skills of argumentation are really very poor now. They think that regurgitating stats and obscure facts is persuasive, when it's anything but. Don't do this.

Take a cue from Zizek: persuasiveness is key, and people don't even have to understand you for you to be persuasive.

Learn to be funny. Intersperse humorous anecdotes with meaningful pre-learned quotes which you don't even have to understand. Randomly drop in terms like "Hegelian" or "essentialist" or "floating signifier" and watch the listener's eyes glaze over as they desperately try to remember Wikipedia articles, and understand something which you've just pulled from your ass. Reference important texts and authors which every lib wishes they've read but probably haven't, Marx, Freud, Camus, whatever...the sky's the limit here.

But mostly just be funny and interesting and alpha and a pretty cool guy.

Nice. Had an annoying roommate who would do this kind of stuff. I don't like arguing with people this way, but it's always good to know what's in thees type of people's playbook.

The easiet way is to actually read and get informed about what your're talking about.
Understanding how the opposition thinks is key to undermining their own faults

Lel, did you ctrv schopenhauer's guide to winning arguments?

Yet, poor whites don't commit the crime at the same rate. Nice concern trolling tho

>he'll just hit me with extremely obscure facts I'm not prepared for
Man, I have a degree in Philosophy.
Theory of Knowledge is my field, together with Critical Discourse Analysis.

So, now, listen to me: he could hit you with obscure facts, and that's legit. However, before feeling overwhelmed, you have to make sure his knowledge is actual knowledge of phenomena and not knowledge of a "field", which may not derive from evidence but be merely built on sophisms.

In other words, this dude might know "a lot".
But "a lot" of *what*?
Maybe he knows *a lot* about a system conceived by people like him, with its own rules and norms for what is acceptable and what is not.

So fuck me, but quoting facts is not sufficient. He has to demonstrate that your knowledge can be appreciated beyond the narrow brackets shared in his own circle (however big it may be).

Actually, whenever political ideas and ethical beliefs are involved, I reckon that the issue is never that of knowledge, but that of being able to include the opponent's desires in a more encompassing perspective.

If you disagree on facts, science will help. In this sense he *may* know more than you do.
But if you disagree about ethics, his knowledge is merely the knowledge of other people's tastes and how such people have developed them.

t. Michel Foucault
t. A.J. Ayer

An argument proves nothing at all

>So fuck me, but quoting facts is not sufficient. He has to demonstrate that your knowledge can be appreciated beyond the narrow brackets shared in his own circle (however big it may be).
>that your knowledge
Should read:
>that *his knowledge

Fuck me I got carried away. Hope it's clear enough, but I doubt myself.

>liberal and/or kike detected

>So fuck me, but quoting facts is not sufficient. He has to demonstrate that his knowledge can be appreciated beyond the narrow brackets shared in his own circle (however big it may be).

What's the difference in practice, between a person doing this and not doing it? What does it look like when a person fails to do this?