Debating is for faggots

>two people with different worldviews discuss a topic
>pretend to be calm and rational
>secretly want to kill each other
>both people have only been researching information on the internet that confirm their opinion
>even if someone is proved wrong, their mind is still not changed
>nobody's opinion is ever changed by debating
>just results in two people being annoyed at each other

People only change their minds when they are emotionally inspired, have experiences that change their worldview, or conform to social pressure.

Debating is completely pointless and it's just a big circle jerk of retards who want to watch their opinion be represented to make themselves feel smart.

If you discuss or debate things with people, you are a faggot.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sJvBwJ_h-UE
youtube.com/watch?v=Ww-PSW4afKw
youtube.com/watch?v=yr5BQS79H7g
youtube.com/watch?v=PY3lBKje46E
youtube.com/watch?v=ghr-JMq1VT0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

This is 100% true. Spoonfeeding a political newcomer is one thing, but debates are pointless.

You need to argue with the left to begin to hate them. Then you must let the hate flow through you, foster it, use it

You just have to be around the left to hate them.

I remember it was 2013 and I had joined a popular band. The genre we were playing in was FULL of hardcore SJWs.

I didn't understand what an "SJW" was at the time. I was just like "Whoa why are all these people so crazy about these social issues. They're like total fucking assholes about it, man".

Then I found Sup Forums.

Experiencing the left will push you very far right.

Sadly this is true.

Debating isn't about trying to convince the other guy anymore, it's about trying to win over the audience.

Correct

I'd like to see dueling make a come back. People don't care for facts and logic enough to save society. SO! the guy with the biggest fucking axe that can kill the most senators would make a cool leader.

maybe true but there are certain facts that debates reveal and lead people to truths such as capitalism being superior to any other system

an argument is an experience that changes your worldview

emotional processes can be involved in affecting rationality, and rationality can be involved in affecting emotional processes.

if your mom was in one of the towers on 9/11, the syllogism:

1) mom was in tower
2) towers collapsed
3) mom is dead

can be crucial to the emotional processes that follow. facts about the world can create emotional reactions which allow for the change. of course, the term emotional here is extremely simplified. but in general i believe this is true.

You don't debate to change your opponent's mind. You debate to change the audience's mind. Just like how I can't convince you not to be a faggot, but others might be discouraged from being a faggot like you.

sage

>logical appeals to idiots generally fail

Sad but true.

This is the real answer.

>trying to convince me that debating is only for changing an audiences mind
>trying to debate me

Nice try faggot

People watching debates are only watching to have their opinion represented so they can jerk off if their guy wins. Similar to people watching football.

Is this up for debate?

I really do not think there are many "neutral" people still deciding what they believe.

Most people have already chosen a side or a narrative, and they're not going to break from that.

I mean, except teenagers and women. Those are the demographics that should be targeted, and they are. e-celebs and youtubers are brainwashing the teens and women into right-wing politics.

Pretty fucking rad

Not necessarily. I do my best to maintain objectivity in debates, which usually leads me to concede a bunch of points. I'm sure there are others too. The truth matters most

My friend opened me up to the possibility that the holocaust was fake.

I was also a politics noob and had never given any thought to history or politics in any way though, and i was younger.

So I think debate works on women and teens/young adults.

What about the ones that don't have an opinion to begin with? everyone wants to side with the winner side and if your side is wrecking the oposition with logic and facts, the newfag is going to side with your team.

OP is a stupid ideologue who probably thinks hes a Nazi, but uses postmodernist logic, what a fag

bunch of narcissistic projection, he literally described himself and said "everyone is like this" lmfao

maybe if you saw how champion debaters spoke, you would appreciate the art form
youtube.com/watch?v=sJvBwJ_h-UE

for all you jewhaters and your beady assholes
youtube.com/watch?v=Ww-PSW4afKw

For all you jewhaters and your beady assholes

youtube.com/watch?v=Ww-PSW4afKw

This is true but I still enjoy debates because I'm autistic.

>literally conceding your points

I have come to the conclusion that sometimes it is good to double down on things even if you know it's not true. I think liberals do this sometimes.

For example, the Jews use the holocaust as political capital to justify Israel and receiving tons of funding. Even if Israel proved that the holocaust happened, it might be beneficial to continue claiming that it did not happen and pumping out propaganda to destroy that narrative.

I have seen this work in other situations as well.

>user is a stupid faggot in denial and thinks that the majority of people aren't like this

what a naive retard lmfao

what the fuck

I've always had this view but I've never actually said anything about it to anyone. I hate this mentality that everyone is special and their opinions are special. Its holding us back as a species.

>this is what sheltered man children actually believe

Of course this is if your only exposure to debate are the autistic outbreaks that retarded faggots like Carl of Swindon have.

People who don't have an opinion are probably not going to watch a debate.

If you don't have an opinion on a controversial political topic, you're either ignorant, apathetic, or completely blackpilled.

For the very very tiny group of people who don't have an opinion that are watching a debate, yeah I guess it's good.

you guys ever read MindWar by Michael Aquino? check it out, it's a great book. try not to let previous impressions of the author skew your opinion. the book certainly changed my mind on him.

anyway, thats what the book is about. the difference between PW (physical war) and MW (mind war). mind war is essentially the act of convincing your enemy that you are in fact correct, using a variety of underhanded, sneaky means. basically blood-less war. worst case you end up going to war.

anyway it sounds great, but in practice you end up dedicating way too much time to upholding a facade, when you could have just killed them

ur so smart bro and ur so redpilled! u got the world figured out

fucking clown, nothing but an ideologue. no different to leftist retards who think they understand humanity

Well, you convinced me, so what now, faggot, your whole opinion just got BTFO like the shitty paradox it is

Holy shit, the worst people in the world are people who sit down and pretend to have an "objective, non-emotional and enlightening discussion" about a topic.

It's the biggest virtue signaling circle jerk of all. Both people are like "WOW LOOK AT US, WE CAN DISAGREE BUT STILL RESPECT EACH OTHER, EVERYBODY LOOK LOOK".

Biggest faggots.

I only debate to further my own knowledge. no point in doubling down unless it's some type of political strategy

I used to think so too, but debate is a muscle that has to be regularly flexed or you'll get BTFO when you least expect it.

Tucker Carlson is a massive boon to our movement simply because he debates leftists and makes them look stupid or crazy on air.

The alt right needs to debate MORE, we've coasted along with spamming infographics for 5 years, but any time Destiny shows up on Sup Forums no one takes up his offer to debate him.

Verbal debate is a lot different than chat or forum debate, entirely different skillsets are needed. The alt right actually isn't very good at verbal debate. Case in point: Richard Spencer got BTFO by Roland Martin (1), despite Martin being an obvious dunce. Spencer just lacks the ability to think on his feet and has no semblance of skillful rhetoric. He resorted to childish trolling, letting the stupid things Martin said go by unchallenged.

tl;dr - the left is adopting convincing rebuttals to our talking points (2) while retards are content with spamming Stormfront infographics from 2010 and refusing to engage (I see the roles reversing, used to be the other way around because the left was so unprepared to respond to our viewpoint)

(1) youtube.com/watch?v=yr5BQS79H7g

(2) youtube.com/watch?v=PY3lBKje46E

>doesn't understand free speech or democratic society
>narrow minded, insecure faggot

It's not 100% of the case, more like 95% sometime you meet a person who's willing to think about things in an abstract and neutral way.

If somebody starts talking to me about politics, I either change the subject, walk away, or just start trolling.

I literally had the lady cutting my hair screaming at me because I kept telling her white blonde women were the only women worth dating because they were voting trump.

The entire place was staring at us.

Serious discussions are for chumps, although I think somebody just explaining what they believe without trying "debate" the other person can sometimes be effective. Like just a casual conversation where two people are not trying to deflate each other's arguments or world views.

it sort of seems like, if you can walk someone through the series of logical steps required to come to a conclusion and they seem to agree and understand, and have already formed an opinion, than they are likely to already have the same opinion as you, and, if they find fault with the logic, they will come to a different conclusion and will never agree. but then again, there is sometimes more than one way to come to a conclusion. in this sense, debate is only useful to cause neutral or ignorant people to take a side, as others have mentioned. i am probably not articulating this particularly well.

Only debate people that seem to be rational and that you think you have a good chance of convincing. Debating emotional retards is pointless.

>anti-free speech because I think it's a pointless virtue signal circle jerk when two people sit down to pretend to have an "informed discussion" about something

Those aren't even connected. I'm in full favor of people saying the most offensive things they can possibly think of, but it's stupid if people are going to pretend to "discuss" it.

The debate is usually done to convince people who may be watching who've not yet decided for themselves.

And how about the "left is eating themselves" part?, there is a small part of desertors who changed their minds after seeing some truths, that is part of winning arguments in a constantly way too, I mean the fags of reddit, some others on twitter and other on some other websites

Debate isn't to change the other guy's talking ideas, it's to make the sheep in the room agree with you

You're right, I also think that the alt-right is becoming intellectually lazy because we won the election.

We're all sitting back, resting on our laurels. We think that we defeated the progressive SJW movement, so now it's time to just bask in the glory.

But yeah I've seen that disgusting tranny faggot addressing alt-right arguments. He has absolutely no market appeal because he's a disgusting tranny faggot with no charisma though.

But the alt-left will be coming in the next few years.

Thats quite the assumption you're making about the audience, also debates bring up questions that you might not have considered.

Why
Do
You
Type
Like
This?

Separating the points seems easier to read

ITT user lost a debate

OP is actually right. Our brain's moral rationalizations are unaffected by reason and debate. I think pic related is like "The Bell Curve" of moral psychology in that most people have never read it, and most people assume what is has to say. Basically, moral views are emotional orientations that we rationalize ex post facto with whatever information we can find. Political views originate in more basic, fundamental, interplay between the different metrics of moral intuition that each of us is predisposed to have. Those are not affected argumentation, or evidence.

You HAVE to appeal to emotion to change someone's political views.

>But the alt-left will be coming
It's already here.

dirtbag left, antifa, remnants from something awful (99% sure that tranny is from there)

>He has absolutely no market appeal because he's a disgusting tranny faggot with no charisma though.
His production is good, and his arguments are thorough. If Jefree Star can get 4,000,000 subscribers it's not beyond possibility for this satanic freak.

The downside for the left is that all of the demographic arguments that apply for white people (haha you're gonna be a minority!) apply doubly for leftists since they group themselves with minorities politically. I can't imagine smug irony bros from Brooklyn winning over minority grievance coalitions. I don't know what political avenues are available to the (white/jewish) left in the future.

...

Oh yeah that's right, I forgot to write this in my OP.

The brain shuts down when met with information that conflicts with the established worldview. It guards itself against new information in order to maintain the worldview, because that is a way of preserving the ego.

That is why SJWs freak the fuck out. Because conflicting information is severely damaging their worldview, and damaging their egos. Their brains go into overdrive and they become emotional to shut it out.

>it's already here

I have something more accessible in mind. A new-left that is actually somewhat appealing to people.

I mean, maybe that isn't coming. I hope not.

(((Glickstein)))

...

Haidt is a Jew too, and yet his research demonstrated that liberals have fewer variables in their moral matrices than conservatives. They're essentially morally autistic to certain value sources.

I love the book but don't like the way those graphs characterize what he said in them. It's making it out to seem like conservative is the right choice even though the author didn't come to that sort of conclusion.

The Righteous Mind is great, and you should read it. Became a critical part of my current world view. It's not a complete guide to political victory though.

"convincing your opponent" is probably the least important aspect of debate. Check out this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=ghr-JMq1VT0

It's true. I try to stop coming here because it's ultimately pointless for me. I should be concentrating on making money and finding a waifu, but I spend way too much of my time here. All it really gives me is good arguments when I visit my mom and argue with her libcuck boyfriend. But even that doesn't do anything, he will never change his mind. Hell I've lost a friend already because I tried to explain to him why Trump isn't this bad guy, and why he shouldn't get his political news from the Colbert Report.

I guess the only thing it's good for is to redpill your gf/wife if you already have one. They are most susceptible because they're a woman, and because you're fucking them. Other than that...unless you're going to run for something in the political world, or gather large sums of cash and lobby for right wing things...it's kinda pointless.

I just come here because it's fucking hilarious and I like to see what's going on.

My mom is redpilled so I talk to her about stuff I see on here, it's fun

This is why real debates happen in front of an audience with judges. Youre persuading the judges + audience, not your opponents. If your opponent ever agrees with you or sides with you, you immediately win.

has an opponent ever changed sides in the middle of a debate with an audience? I'd like to see a video of that

debating is only useful when there is an audience.

No, but the interesting thing is that most people seem to intuitively think that the best view IS the one that takes the most considerations into account. When they see the full scope and variables of the moral matrix, even liberals (like Haidt) find the scope of their own predispositions as lacking. Haidt HAS said that his research changed his sense of himself, and altered some of his prior temperamental inclinations.

Honestly, most of the people I've met in my life, when I think about their political views, and then them as a person, it seems to me that these graphs are very accurate.

IIRC he said that the libertarian one was the most "rational" even though it's not balanced at all, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Also he's a centrist now so what you said about him changing is true.

Doubtful. When people are presented with an argument, they immediately believe there is a counter argument. Doesn't matter if they don't have one at the moment, because somewhere it must exist.

That's how it is for me anyway. Lucky for me there are usually counter arguments that I just didn't think of/find at the moment. If I have exhausted my research and thinking about it, I will usually concede that I was wrong. But you don't have time to do that in a debate.

I never said anything about being "rational" being the best. I said people intuitively see the temperament that gives all variable equal consideration, as the most "reasonable". That's the mind hack of the book. When you SEE the nature of moral calculations, you become aware of what your own mind is doing when it makes a moral judgment. It makes you self-conscious of being too limited, which happens to make someone less sympathetic to the far left temperament, AND the libertarian temperament, or any temperament that is too skewed towards only one or two variables.

>We won the election

Did we?
I wasn't aware.

>We're all sitting back, resting on our laurels

And what do you suggest I or anyone else do? make 10m long youtube videos addressing trannies on baby's first "black and white vs shades of grey" argument on race like this faggot wants us to?

And I don't believe he said libertarians were rational, just the least affected by other variables, and only responded to considerations of liberty. Essentially, they can only be emotionally manipulated by the issue of freedom, and nothing else, which perhaps frees them up to then be more influences by other things like reason and evidence (so long as it doesn't contradict liberty)

The whole point of the book is that moral intuition AREN'T rational, but that we rationalIZE them ex post facto.

Okay so you're not trying to express the author's views like I thought you were. You're saying that the nature of the book happens to make people believe something that was never argued for in the book. However, I don't know if that's true of most readers or if it's just an interpretation of the book you and a minority of others came to

I'll try to find the passage about libertarianism I was talking about

>Debating is for those who know debate
recuse yourself fgt pls

sounds like an invitation to a debate about debating
fag

>And what do you suggest I or anyone else do? make 10m long youtube videos addressing trannies on baby's first "black and white vs shades of grey" argument on race like this faggot wants us to?

no I suggest you whine on 8/pol/ that TRUMP IS BOUGHT BY THE JEWS before alt tabbing to your favorite cuck porn and cryfap

some people are allergic to success. fringe right attracts a lot of masochists.

Are you trying to turn this anti-debate into a debate about whether or not this is a debate?

Get out fag

>You're saying that the nature of the book happens to make people believe something that was never argued for in the book
You're dense. He's saying there's an opportunity to take advantage of Haidt's moral matrix because it (as you admitted yourself in your very first post) makes conservatives look more reasonable (not "rational") and may cause liberals (like Haidt) to analyze their own outlook a bit deeper.

I think it's a great way to look at Haidt, could be effective propaganda.

Debate isn't about changing an opinion in a second. Debating is about pushing ideas into other people's minds. Do you not know how memes work? If one keeps hearing it, they recreate it,this is why we all hate jews. We had the jew hatred poured into us by other Sup Forumsacks but after we confirmed that we hated jew we did some research and turned out that the jews ARE trying to fuck us over.

This is how debate works.

There's also another reason,in public debates misinformed people learn about shit they didn't know thus shaping their opinions. Unless they are actively blinding themselves to confirm their biases.

Of course it is

Only betas debate

Just look at that Destiny faggot, he's a great example

>two people who have erased the notion of 'worldview' from their mind by purging their lives of fantastical entertainment discuss a topic
>are calm and rational because there is no immediate threat to the situation
>secretly want to drop the whole thing and get laid
>both people have only been studying philosophy that is confirmed by centuries of debate
>if a position is proved wrong it is reworded in a manner that is both accurate and easily understood
>nobody with a set opinion ever has a real debate
>just results in two people have a lovely conversation

You seem to believe that everyone has defined, unwavering opinions on every political or social issue. Debates really effect a skeptical audience. That's why people still bother to debate. Don't be an idiot.

Nothing you said is new to me. I know that he was twisting Haidt's research in a propagandistic way using those graphs. I just thought at first that he actually thought that the graphs represented the author's own views.

This. I'd honestly rather watch them try to kill each other to find out who was right after all.

Debate is about persuading the audience.

>If you discuss or debate things with people, you are a faggot
most discussions and debates are for the people on the fence who are listening/watching

Debates are not retarded when people don't have strong opinion, eg, not in politics or religion.

We're still full of redditfugees

Dude... wow.

That user is right. We do not debate to "win" er debate to conflict our own worldview and try to find the truth.

Yeah that 5% is ok to debate with and may even be good for both you and him as it's a constructive debate.

It makes you less extremist and at the same time open you friend's mind to some issues he doesnt see.
You get both to see each sides of the medal and it makes you grow up as a person.

Be friend with these ppl, they are valuable even if they disagree with you

This is a parody... right?

My neighbor literally had a room filled with NAZI shit like that, it was awesome. He got remarried and his wife forced him to sell it all.

KEK! hahahahaha

He id get a nice Porsche with the cash though.

I have a girl I argue with all the fucking time. She's so liberal, but she's not infected with intersectionality. So we can argue and I can yell at her and fuck her while screaming in German. So we get along great, but she accepts the red pills slowly. Still doubts studies immediately, and we end more discussions in mutual disagreement.

The debate meme is overplayed. Even inbetween actual politicians, the viewers would learn more if it was just a solo talk elaborating their points and the reasons behind them. Assuming the speaker is worth anything, and not just a gibbering ape that only spews lies and buzzwords.

dude i want a comfy banner