Does Sup Forums ever have political debates with normies?

You have to practice your arguments Sup Forums, we have 8 years to redpill normies so we don't have a democrat backlash in 2024.

Other urls found in this thread:

newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-deep-denialism-of-donald-trump
rt.com/news/375961-uae-trump-ban-muslims/
youtube.com/watch?v=mQNj_vwWwFM
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>white is kind of vague so I will assume you mean jews.

>literally couldn't even pass the very first shit test

all the time. I think I might've changed their minds even on certain topics, but they certainly have not changed their "Punching Nazis is ok" sentiments.

I think we might be screwed. The Jew pill is just too big for people to swallow.

That's because the kikes have spent the last century convincing everyone that they are white.

Whats the commie equivalent to Sup Forums on Sup Forums?

what was her response after the last comment

I defend liberalism against the left and explain why people might be nationalist and even white nationalist, but I don't want muh career derailed by addressing the Volksgenossen on social media.

...

Strange, I found many normies got it when I explained that punching Nazis would lead to it being considered fine to punch communists, BLM etc. and that liberalism's unique point is that it can withstand critique from outside liberalism, otherwise it's a hollow sham, just another set of dogmas.

what site are faggoting on?

any more responses?

Reddit

sorry you speak like low iq rural and suburban retard OP

Nope all the normies I know are super liberal

Okcupid.
She hasn't responded yet. She either went to sleep or blocked me.

They need it the most.

yes, and every time I completely annihilate them by showing their hypocrisy and explain concise and factual points they sperg out and start using buzzwords and ad-hominum and say they win.

100% of the time, when people want to have a political discussion face to face, what they really want is for you to agree with them on every issue. If you don't, you are wrong and they want to lecture you to make you join their side.

It is a total waste of time talking politics because people will always find a reason to hate you.

/leftypol/

You're supposed to use different colors for different posters.

you need to step up your game familam. Provide definition for common understanding. Refute the core of her argument by deconstructing it; merely saying you disagree is not enough. Give her numbers and hard statistical facts from unassailable sources.

>jews
>white
Okay, you fucked up already

I actually have a discussion with a normie tomorrow about trump.

Shes pretty SJW, so its going to be tough.

I need your help pol.

Topics will undoubtedly be the travel ban, and 'how it originally included duel passport holders until the judges said it was illegal', and 'the entire worlds media can't have an agenda'

she also just linked me this... newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-deep-denialism-of-donald-trump

Any help is appreciated friends.

Sure, with a bunch of people. Strategy I've been pursuing lately is to get people sympathetic to/leaning towards right libertarianism, then slowly leading them to upper-right

Bring it all back to 9/11, and that Islam declared the war not us.

Nah, some people just like debating and don't hate each other. You learn new things when you argue with people.

To be fair you smashed her with the last comment. Well played user, everyone admits blacks are better at basketball, naturally stronger, bigger dicks etc.

But say whites are more intelligent...

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

That's not how you deal with chicks, man.

Show her how 90% the media in america is owned by the same 5 companies and the travel ban is just common sense, you'll never get her to agree with you on that one, liberals refuse to look at stats and facts they like feefees.
>You're wasting your time anyway she isn't going to get redpilled in one conversation and you'll both go home feeling angry

what site are faggoting on?

any more responses?

On the subject of the travel ban, memorize 8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens. Point out the fact the travel ban list is the exact same list that Obama passed in December 2015. Point out the Kuwaiti ban of similar scope and purpose. Point out the 16 muslim nations that apply similar bans on Isreal. Look for a source on her claim, and ask her for it yourself - if you can provide it and she can't it will damage her position. Understand how and when the US constitution applies to foreigners.

(also fucks sakes it's next to impossible to get a post through)

Liberals are intellectual cowards. I know a few from work and playing some games online, years ago. They also shrink away in a debate once I start getting into the details and fundamentals as well as citing objective facts. Part of it I'm sure is to preserve our friendship, but I think the greater part is that they just can't defend their philosophy when it is challenged.

Travel ban made by Obama administration
Trump is just enforcing laws that already existed

Media and public only shitting on him because it's Trump, had Obongo done it everybody would've been fine.

The travel ban is only for 120 days, and he's only banning the most dangerous countries in the world.

30 days to come up with a plan to save them from ISIS, 90 days for military action against terror.

If she argues that it's a muslim ban, tell her there's 44 other muslim countries that can still go to the United States.

Remember, OBAMA administration created this in 2015

Its Okcupid

Obama made the list of banned countries, Trump just put it into action.

The ban was only 90 days, and only from countries that are high risk. Not all Muslim countries were banned, and no Muslims were banned.

Also, what's wrong with banning anyone from entering? Constitutionally the president has the right to ban whoever he wants from entering, at anytime, for any reason.

Also, what's wrong with banning people who might not be good for our country? The whole point of a country is people as a group making decisions that benefit that group, not other groups.

Pathological altruism is deadly.

I don't have sources.

>being on a dating site for anything other than entertainment

The travel ban is a shit thing to argue about because half the time each party is arguing about something completely different, thinking they're talking about the same thing.

One person is talking about Islam and the merits of Islamic culture and values.

The other is talking about uncontrolled immigration, Muslim and white birth rates and the European demographic crisis.

Or they're talking about refugee vetting and the threat of terrorism.

Or they're talking specifically about ISIS.

When you get into the particulars of the ban and how it's been enforced (which of course is constantly changing!) there's a million other things to get hung up on and argue past each other about.

One person is arguing about whether or not Trump etc botched the execution of the ban and the other is talking about whether it's philosophically justifiable in the first place. One person is arguing about whether or not the ban is illegal/unconstitutional and you're arguing about whether or not it's effective. It's too complex a topic with too many angles to do more than talk past each other unless you're talking with somebody who you know pretty well and have at least some common ground with (at least in the sense of knowing precisely where the other person stands on issues like immigration, not necessarily in the sense of agreeing on them).

>political debates
*tips fedora*

rt.com/news/375961-uae-trump-ban-muslims/

one of many outlets that covered it. Just grabbed one of the top searches.

For the hardline lefty/communist I think it's going to take physical removal, so to speak.

they were all the same poster though.

wait till you've fucked her first. Then shes attached.

I try debating normies but I have trouble hiding my power level

some lefties are just sheeple who haven't been red pilled. They can be brought around.

Other lefties are simply too far gone on Marxist programming, and cannot exist without their identity poltics. Nazi to them is anyone who threatens to pop there bubble.

Then there's the Jews and invading "minorities" that use it intentionally as a weapon...no red pilling them unless they take the time to become physically and mentally strong, and therefore lose the victim complex...or you know..

The last group is the AntiFa's. With them, the use of Nazi is much different than the common usage. You see, the AntiFa's where once known as the brown shirts...and the Nazi party shit rolled them. The AntiFa's never forgot that. They aren't angry about the Jews...they are angry that they got out SJW'd by Hitler. These fuckers are the source of it being used so strangely as of late. There is even videos of them chasing Jews and yelling Nazi at them..

I'm not sure about the value of arguing with women. They'll say and think what they think the popular thing is. They aren't persuaded by arguments but by emotion. If they have a boyfriend or husband they will, or should, follow his beliefs. Arguing with men makes more sense, because he will be persuaded by reason, and in persuading him you will persuade his girl too.

That said, if you have to, or want to, argue with women, you should tailor your presentation to your subject. Women are persuaded by emotion - not statistics or logic.

What I would try with women...

"I was against Donald Trump when he said he wanted to ban all Muslims. I thought that may have been against the constitution. What really opened my eyes though was listening to some of my LGBTQ friends. They brought up what I thought was a really good point - in countries like Iraq, Iran, and Syria, homosexuals can be and are stoned to death. How could I be friends with people and simultaneously support bringing people into this country who want to, or even might want to, murder them?"

"I actually saw this election as a competition of two different kinds of feminism. Hillary Clinton was running on the older kind of feminism, the idea that women can break the final glass ceiling, and that women need to struggle for their rights. On the other side, there is a new kind of feminism that I see embodied in Ivanka Trump. She's a powerful executive, she's involved politically, and she's a mother with three kids. She's really fashionable too. With Hillary, I think she comes from a place in the past, where women weren't equal and are struggling to be. I think society is ahead of that though. I think society is with Ivanka Trump. Women are already equal, and we should be worried about creating jobs, making money, and raising a family."

>implying the left has any arguments left

I think we could be friends.

>A Jew masturbating to gold.

Lmao what pic was it?

>posted a Jew masturbating to gold

This one

>I actually have a discussion with a normie tomorrow

you plan your conversations in advance?
that's autistic as fuck user

I like you, ausbro. You got a good sense of humor.

Tell her that a majority of American Arab Muslim young men voted for Trump.

And that we all hate Hillary.

Let me give it a go

>What is your opinion on white genocide?

It's a meme made by Viking LARPers.

>It's a meme made by Viking LARPers
Ad hominem. Personal attacks are not arguments.

The question asked for an opinion. Your claim that it is not an argument is correct, but it is also irrelevant.

This

And if it's really a planned debate, the SJW normie will have looked through your Facebook feed to find something you did wrong sometime, or a forum post via connected profile if she's good. Then she'll be able to "prove" you're a racist and she'll win the argument.

Watch this video and learn how to deal with accusations of racism:
youtube.com/watch?v=mQNj_vwWwFM

Just wave the "racist" accusations away. Ask if they have any arguments besides labeling you

>we have 8 years

You can't dismiss an opinion as "ad hominem"

"I hate nazis" is an ad hominem but it's just an opinion. Ask for proof or evidence if you want to be able to call things a fallacy.
The main reason discussions with normies don't work is because people operate on different levels. A liberal doesn't use facts and evidence, it's a "us vs. them" strategy. Posting statistics never changes anyone's minds

I used to do this. Moved on to screaming at cunts on Sup Forums, who actually stand a chance at actually making the rare and nearly extinct "argument". The best method to taking these people down is actually having no main points of your own when you argue. Only refute what they say, and in as much detail as possible. If they try to actually form a reply they don't have anything to really respond to that way. Always works if there's at least something to refute.

>The main reason discussions with normies don't work is because people operate on different levels. A liberal doesn't use facts and evidence, it's a "us vs. them" strategy. Posting statistics never changes anyone's minds

Not everyone who hates Nazis is a liberal.

It was just an example

Instead of a proper argument like "Murdering millions of people because of their ethnicity is bad for those people and cannot be justified" it's easier to say "I hate nazis" but that's ad hominem, while the former is an actual argument

>You can't dismiss an opinion as "ad hominem"

>my opinion is that white genocide is a meme (not real), because

Your opinion is wrong until you provide evidence to the contrary.

>posting statistics never changed anyone's mind
It changes autists minds. I used to be liberal because I did not have any facts or statistics or experience to make me think differently.

watch this

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Actually, "Murdering millions of people because of their ethnicity is bad for those people and cannot be justified" is just another statement of belief, not an argument.

If I was interested in debating someone making the opposite claim, I would ask a question: "What do you think justifies killing people because of their ethnicity?"

I hate when they say it's a social constructure
EVERYTHING is a social construct; time, constituttion, cientific method, nouns, verbs, music (theory).
You can base a social construct in random things like (name of months; February or December) or in logical facts and deduce Gravitational Theory

>Actually, "Murdering millions of people because of their ethnicity is bad for those people and cannot be justified" is just another statement of belief, not an argument.
I know I couldn't quickly come up with a real proper argument

My point is that any argument starting with "I hate" (or any argument about hate) is irrational but that's okay because opinions don't have to be rational. Facts and science are rational, opinions and emotions aren't.
Now it's easy to pretend that our own opinions are based on facts, logic and evidence and that the other party is emotional, irrational and wrong but that's probably not the case. The problem is that it's nigh impossible to sympathize with the other's viewpoints.

For example, we consider liberals as weak irrational people and that's where their arguments come from. They consider us hateful and irrational and that's where our arguments come from. As unlikely as you are to consider a liberal's argument about how we should help refugees, so unlikely are they to consider our argument for racial differences for example

This.

>normies
>debate
>arguments
new to life?

I find people of all ideologies to be irrational to an extent.

If I tell a liberal or an alt-righter that I think we should have a firm stance against Russia because the national interest of the United States and of many European nations conflict with the national interest of Russia, regardless of sentiment or ideology because of material strategic interests, they respond with something like "War is bad, we shouldn't police the world" or "Russia is the good guys, their skin is white and their flag's color has changed" but neither ever address the reason behind my view on foreign policy.

We were all normies once, faggot. It's only because someone took the time to reach you that you became redpiller

this. Left is intellectual deficient. Their agenda can't sustain a sharp contest, everything is a cognitive disonance. Even when we talk about science and economy.

Something that must be understood is that the typical person is not as passionate about politics as others and it is not easy for the typical person to address arguments on the spot if they are not arguments they have encountered. The latter is true of anyone, even if they are interested solely in the truth and lack any bias. People concerned with paying the rent and playing games online might simply not be interested in the taxing effort of forming thorough arguments.

why would we do that?
we won.
let them scream into the void.

The Great Meme War has only just begun

We can't just sit back and enjoy the ride now. We need to keep at it, spreading information to the masses. Instead of people voting Democrat in response to Trump, we need to redpill people to become more conservative. The least we can do is have a Republican president again in 2020, the best we can do is reelect Trump.

Considered in joining the local republican party here so i can assist and teach about truth to normies.

How about joining the Democrat party and subtly redpilling people there?

eh you have to get past all the bible thumpers and neocons

Honestly, much easier to join the Democrats like Netherlands said

They are so much easier to manipulate. Only downside is their celebrity worshiping makes it harder to become an influential leader figure if you're not a celebrity.

Not a bad idea, although I fear I would end up telling them our vulnerabilities.

No one ever reached for me, fag.
Sure as hell I was a normie, but what "awoke" me was reality.
Nowadays "normies" are still living in deny even when the consequences of their policies hit them directly in the face.

Stop projecting and get fucked.

Bible thumpers i can relate with, and neocons can take a few redpills on accident.

Republicans = religion worship
Democrats = celebrity worship

Oddly enough, Id rather choose the religion worshippers since that creates a certain interest in history inherently. Leading to easy redpilling discussions, even the holohoax.

Just say you care about the country and poor people and refugees and ask a lot of questions, like "How are we gonna finance this" and "How will we determine who should recieve this grant" etc. etc.
Don't see it as an inflitration. Democrats are not the enemy. There shouldn't even be two groups of people where we do everything right and they do everything wrong. What matters are ideas and plans. Whether you're Democrat or Republican, libertarian or fascist, there should be free exchange of ideas. If they have bad ideas, point out flaws in their plans and offer an alternative

Holohoax is not an issue for the US in 2017. It does not affect elections in any way and talking about it only will make people hate you. Instead, stay focused on economic and racial issues