Sup Forums, I am first and foremost a lurker. I don't really speak your language or understand everything I see here, but today I come to you with a plea.
I saw in a thread today an idea for a thread exclusively dedicated to helping anons debate leftists on everything from race and gender to global warming and cultural marxism. I want to make this idea a reality.
If you have sources that debunk the typical claims made by our enemies, reply to this thread with them. I will do my best to watch, maintain, and update this thread.
Below is just a rough start, with your help, it can grow and thrive. pastebin.com/bfH51d4D
Sources and citations are an absolute must. A graph without a source is no more convincing than an empty page.
Ayden Ward
Fair, I only posted a random one to bump before thread reached end page.
Will attach sources in future posts
Juan Diaz
It's definitely appreciated, I want this to be a thing but I know I can't do it alone. If I can channel Sup Forums's autism and somehow weaponize it in the form of a well maintained fact library, it has the potential to destroy everything.
Chase Hill
Good start!
It's also important to realize that whule pictures and memes are good mediums to get an idea across, knowing how to debate and the find logical fallicies is good too. Also, criticism between us is a good thing so that we don't stumble over ourselves and provide an erroneous answer.
For example, if someone posts a good meme, but it has actually and factually been debunked let them know so that they don't use it and then look silly.
Pic related. Not everyone you encounter will be a shill, but the picture shows an almost obvious script that is being projected.
Christopher Kelly
Agreed on pictures. I was thinking that I could make an imgur account with multiple albums dedicated to holding all examples given of certain categories of information, like media hivemind or debunked news articles.
Jackson Flores
Could be useful for an user to have a research team when out red pilling on the front lines. This general could serve that purpose as well.
Joshua Collins
Haven't verified the source data, but if legit it's brutal
Samuel Phillips
Ideally this will be up fairly consistently. Once the ground work is laid and all the resources tied in, hopefully any and all typical arguments will have their fallacies laid bare.
In the event new arguments come to pass, the collective of Sup Forums will undoubtedly rise to the occasion.
The person who made the table in your picture filtered that data through a population size/proportion measure to see the crime rate in regards to the percent of pop the race makes up. I did something similar, and showed the work. It came out like this
Zachary Sullivan
Agreed! That would be good.
As much as it sucks, it's important to remember that sometimes we will be wrong. But don't let that damage you. Just because one time you failed doesn't mean you're a failure, because you cant be perfect, but drive home the points that are undeniably true.
Pic related. Double standards exist and show poor judgement. Bias is also detrimental to an extreme, but if minimal, not really too bad. It goes both ways, too. They can just as easily shut you out by saying that certain information is biased as you can to them. That's why it's imperative to come at them with a "weapon" that they can't refute, at least on a fundamental level. (I.e., using these two HuffPo articles to show biases and double standards)
Carter Johnson
so we build a big info graph? a list of all the common arguments, and a sourced link BTFOing it out of the water?
Benjamin Martinez
What a fucking numale faggot.
Thomas Ramirez
I actually think a big pasta would be better: it means anons can actually follow the links.
should do both if anything.
Gabriel Rodriguez
In my experience lurking, it's best not to underestimate Sup Forums. Shia made that mistake, and lost his flag because of it.
Anthony Gray
It's in the works friend, that pastebin link will grow, and as it does, it will be an attention grabbing monster like /ptg/. Give it time, and give it your attention.
Jose Kelly
cool friendo. care to give me a sneak peak?
give it a cool text border or something too, make it really pop out.
Jacob Diaz
Most important is to make sure it doesn't fizzle out. Unfortunately some people on Sup Forums myself included like to just shitpost. Some like to come here to relax, not to think critically. Keeping the fire kindled will be a hard job but once it get going [spoiler]THE FIRE RISES[/spoiler]
Pic related is a good example of perspective. It is fact that these people are intermingled, but to what extent the conspiring goes is up to interpretation. These types are not good since they can easily be dismissed by "Well we don't KNOW they are bad people/do nefarious things, it's just coincidence." It's difficult to debate coincidence.
I plan to use this to keep track of all infographics collected within this thread so that we will have them going forward. Ideally, once it is well established, you'll be able to select the album most related to the topic at hand and pull up a myriad of information.
you need to also use emotion and be subtle about how you convince someone
much more effective to be on someone's side, and gently push them in the right direction so that they themselves find the answer
Nolan Rogers
I do agree with the 'logic in one hand, emotions in the other' tactic, but that still requires you to have the logic in one hand.
A compiled fact library is better at being a shield than a sword, as it protects you against the false claims of your adversaries. Using it in aggression, you come off as an unfeeling monster. Shield yourself from their fallacies.
Jordan Sanchez
Agreed, you need a full mastery of the facts and logic before you can do what I'm suggesting.
The best way to help people find the answer "themselves" is to ask the pertinant questions at the right moments that expose the contradictions of the brainwash victim's ideology.
For example, with respect to open borders, you can easily point out how the open borders policy, ostensibly pushed in order to "help poor people", is in fact an attack on workers.
>Oh, haha, well I guess if we want open borders, we'll just have to live with workers being paid low wages and the death of unions. I guess the big corporations need those workers after all.
On "racists" >Yeah that's true, I guess that makes all Japanese people nazi-tier racists then... better cancel my trip to Tokyo.
I hate to generalize, but this works much better on women than men. Often time with men if you're just forceful and know your shit you can win. To be honest, being in the Liberal hellhole known as Canada, I get plenty of opportunity to try this out, and if I don't straight up convince the person, the very worst I get is "well, I don't know enough..." or "I'll have to look into that...".
It also helps if you are a successful person and people look up to you, as opposed to a lardass NEET neckbeard with nothing going on in his life.
/rant
Noah Garcia
It is nice to see a Canadian that isn't just shitposting fervently for his .02 cents. I appreciate your feedback, friend.
Christopher Lee
This is solid advice.
When defending yourself you will usually have somewhat of a high ground because others will see you deftly defending yourself and the attackers as being bad, unless completelt blinded by rage
Liam Carter
>puts rake down Today Canada was not a leaf
Christian Ward
well said
>here is a cheap shot that is surprisingly effective
Anthony Nguyen
Don't make me start shitposting... I get $0.02 Trudeau Bucks for every post.
Gabriel Gutierrez
Here's a preview of what the new OP will look like. I intend to have each section filled out with a related imgur gallery and pastebin link:
/dbg/ DEBATE GENERAL Under construction, feedback and content requested and appreciated.
DEBATE GENERAL - Build your argument on a foundation of sound sources! dbgeneral.imgur.com/
Two of the most fundamental pillars of all of these schemes are the media and academia.
Two very useful points you can raise when trying to break down these pillars are the Church Committee and the Reece Committee. Both were congressional investigations. The former into the CIA and their infiltration of the media and Operation Mockingbird (among other things), and the latter was an investigation into how the big tax exempt foundations (Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.) were subverting Academia and were committing "un-American" acts.
This particular interview with Norman Dodd, the Director of Research for the Reece Committee, is very powerful. In it, he reveals that he was among only a handful of people who got access to the Carnegie Endowment's minutes book (for ~40 years prior to WW1).
His summary of what was in those minutes was shocking - these tax exempt foundations main goals were to:
1. Subvert the American education system, specifically to rewrite history 2. Wage wars for profit 3. Promote collectivism
I currently dont have time to check the links you have posted but the thread will be archived and I will later, thank you for sharing
Logan Edwards
For immigration
The "migration crisis" is a manufactured crisis, and is in fact a direct attack on the peoples of Europe.
The EU literally spends money advertising in third world countries, incenting people to migrate by telling them about all the benefits of living in Germany (or elsewhere) - free healthcare, jobs, etc.
Some crisis if they have to advertise to get the migrants to come.
Then, those same tax exempt foundations (NGO's), see above, are literally the ones who are doing the human trafficking under the guise of "rescue operations":
Meanwhile, the same traitor leaders are telling us that we must accept the migrants are the same ones perpetuating the never-ending wars and destabilization efforts in those third world countries.
These people have already conquered the third world, and now they want to conquer the last bit of independence,what remains of Western civilization, and take full control under "global governance".
But don't take my word for it, they admit it themselves in their own internal documents!
Bumping as well. Got work in 7 hours but I'm loving this thread. Keep it up user
Jose Thomas
There's tons of these on the media, but here's a few in case you don't have em:
Campaign staff discussing how to blunt the successful Bernie Sanders attack that cast Clinton as the "establishment" candidate. Their strategy involved getting bloggers and columnists to "write about this from a racial justice and reproductive rights perspective, including a few people who joined us on a call to talk about the "Bernie Backlash" that was unfolding even before his remarks last night—current list is Elianne Ramos [HuffPo], Jessica Valenti [Guardian] (who is writing a column on this as we speak), Jamil Smith [MTV/Viacom], Sady Doyle [Guardian, The Atlantic], Aminatou Sow, Gabe Ortiz [WaPo, Univision], and others". /podesta-emails/emailid/56243
Lisa Lerer (AP) writing an article about Clinton's "Wall Street problem" is asking campaign staff how she should characterize her article: "she is asking if we wish to characterize her remarks in any way." /podesta-emails/emailid/36373
Campaign staff for one candidate are being given the opportunity (CNN) to provide with questions to ask another candidate in an upcoming interview. /dnc-emails/emailid/27526
Mark Leibovich (NYT) allowing campaign staff to edit his article - literally picking what to include and what not to include in the article. /podesta-emails/emailid/4213
Party staff saying Kenneth Vogel (Politico) gave her his story in advance, and that if there's anything the campaign doesn't like, she can "push back". /dnc-emails/emailid/10808
Also interesting to see what battles were being fought in the feminist "establishment" back then, because that was the beginning of so-called "third wave" feminism. Obviously Paglia lost that battle, but it's worth watching more of her videos.
In the same vein, Iben Thranholm making common sense points about how our culture, especiall European culture, has been feminized:
Renowned NOAA scientist blew the whistle on the data that was the entire basis for the Paris agreement. Essentially, much of the data was straight up fake.
Also worth noting that the day after this bombshell article was published, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as a source.
A nice summary, with only primary source materials as evidence, of what really went on in the Ukraine coup:
John McCain inciting coup supporters telling them "the US supports you". youtu.be/gK2U91Qy8ZU
Victoria Nuland handing out food and goodies to coup supporters. youtu.be/fbjNJbjEy04
Victoria Nuland leaked phone call where she's deciding who would be the best puppet to install in Ukraine. youtu.be/KIvRljAaNgg
Victoria Nuland bragging about how the US spent $5 billion on Ukrainian "democracy". youtu.be/eaR1_an9CnQ
Victoria Nuland squirming while being questioned about what hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds are being used for in Ukraine and supporting neo Nazi groups. youtu.be/6TpZa4OMFVk
And of course, not to be outdone, here's George Soros bragging that his foundation had a large role to play in the Ukraine getting "independence" from Russia. youtu.be/kPGMPlEHLTA
Caleb Nguyen
This is actually kinda useful, going back to the "pointing out contradictions" tactic.
On the one hand the Democrats support literal Nazis in Ukraine, while on the other they're calling everyone else they disagree with a Nazi.
>B-but it's only 10% of them are literal Nazis, so it's ok that we give them billions of dollars and weapons
Joseph Garcia
Bump
Ethan Green
Anyway, hope you can organize some of this stuff better.
My preference is always on primary source material that is simply not refutable.
It's easy for a brainwash victim to dismiss a "le ebil Breitbart article" that's blaming George Soros for the coup in Ukraine.
It's far more difficult to refute/ignore when George Soros himself is on video bragging about his misdeeds.
Isaac Garcia
Its a well known phenomenon that regardless what that tax rate is, federal revenue is always 19.5% of GDP. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law
I got my degree in economics (fwiw).
Tyler Parker
Alright, a final image for the climate change folder.
Surprise, 95% of their models and predictions are wrong. That's not even including the insane predictions from people like Al "Soros Funded" Gore who claimed that there would be zero ice left in the arctic by 2014 (for the record there was 5.8 million square miles in 2015).
Samuel Martin
Here's the updated OP complete with sub-pastebins that lead to all the links you provided filed away under organized subheaders: /dbg/ DEBATE GENERAL Under construction, feedback and content requested and appreciated.
DEBATE GENERAL - Build your argument on a foundation of sound sources! dbgeneral.imgur.com/
I would absolutely put this in if there's a source for it somewhere.
Ryder Collins
You make a good point. I have recently incorporated this in my arguments. If someone is arguing for unchecked massive immigration from third world countries, definitely make note of how their indiscriminate birth rates are actually taking a pretty hard toll on the environment, and that more people = extracting more resources from the earth, destroying natural habitats, and burning more fossil fuels.
Aiden Taylor
I mean this is pretty obvious stuff but surprisingly I've encountered many people who fail to make this connection. This is a good video if it hasn't already been posted
There's never any talk about common sense solutions like.. oh, I dunno, how about not bombing these countries into the stone age? Maybe not forcing them into unsustainable debt for the profit of international banker criminals?
The only "solution" ever presented is immigration, nothing else.
Ethan Gray
You beat me to it senpai
Have a picture of John McCain with the leader of ISIS.
I am but one man! I need time to sift and compile lol
Gavin Williams
I feel like this data is useless without incorporating household income because of the muh poverty = more crime rebuttal.
Nathan Murphy
The source is former NASA scientist Roy Spencer, PhD.
>Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. >He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.
You're not wrong, ideally you hit them with this, then follow up with a counter to the income/crime relationship argument. This general will, ideally, have a rebuttal to anything your opponents can throw at you.
Owen Gutierrez
>let's pool our arguments so that we all sound the same in a debate and nobody actually has to think about anything
Connor Hughes
Renowned climate scientist Judith Curry resigns, due to the "craziness" of the climate science world in academia.
If you want to keep your integrity in the world of "climate change" academia, apparently resigning is the only way.
Nothing wrong with all citing the same information if that information is all correct. That is the ultimate goal here, to pool the sources we've found and weed out the ones deemed illegitimate.
Zachary Reyes
There should just be a wikia. It could be maintained in this general and maybe eventually stickied.
James Walker
wtf, i hate arguments now
Blake Moore
I can take a crack at that tomorrow. For now I want to make sure I have all the information in one place and organized. Just because it's done now, doesn't mean it can't be done better.
Matthew Taylor
Can we archive this shit please? Important stuff here
Cooper Sullivan
Current with most information tied in:
DEBATE GENERAL - Build your argument on a foundation of sound sources! dbgeneral.imgur.com/
Some random user posted it in a random thread a while back. I agree it's impressive.
Thomas Hughes
Thank you to each and every last one of you. I appreciate your contributions and will make a new thread tomorrow. I'll also look into getting a Wikia going and seeing what that entails. Be on the look out for a new /dbg/ thread tomorrow!
Liam Hernandez
Agreed.
I've heard more recent polls regarding pic related have tried to downplay the actual statistics. Any word on it?
Also. I got into am argument about Sweden and their immigration policies. Now I know that they stopped keeping track of race when compiling their crime data, which right there is reason enough for anyone with half a brain to be suspicious of, but does anyone have a source on the last instance they kept such statistics? I've heard it was 1996 from some and 2005 from others. Even if we can't directly prove the immigrants are responsible for the current upspike in these crimes (because of information being withheld from us) we could make a compelling argument to any doubters that it IS them by matching proportions (I think they e let in half a million African and Muslim immigrants since 2012?).
Here is a potentially useful source in American violent crime by race. It's nice the cowards at the DOJ are finally not lumping Mexicans in with American whites
