ITT: ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE DEBATE TECHNIQUES

ITT: ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE DEBATE TECHNIQUES

ill start:
>me: "opportunity equality is all we can achieve, outcome equality is indefinable and a fools errand"
>her: "that is propaganda, ill explain another time"

Other urls found in this thread:

slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
twitter.com/Baku0190
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

do progressives account for the fact that people who disagree with them are also free thinking and healthy humans? every time its either i am heartless or i have been brainwashed by propaganda (literally every time)

>well, see i don't think the issue you just talked about is that simple, for instance-
>uhhh that's a phobia you bigot

Every time

You're all racist

>well, see i don't think the issue you just talked about is that simple, for instance-
holy fuck just reading this sent me into a fit of rage

Don't post that irrelevant octaroon. He is so painfully unfunny that even still images of him make me cringe

>I think there should be a mandatory sterilization of mentally challenged people.
>But muh feelings
2 hours laterror.
>heh, Im neutral, therfore I have no opinion.
Richard if you're reading this, fuck you faggot learn how to argue.

thats why i use him definition of smug

idk government mandates are a slippery slope i could see getting sterilized when the progressives define "bigotry" mental illness

You have to find the best path for meritocracy.

Leftists weigh-down the successful by making all of society pay for the mistakes of the lowest common denominator; and forcing wealth to be diverted to welfare when it makes little difference for progress/stability as a whole, and can sometimes even hinder it (ex.: giving welfare to Muslim immigrants, causing more of them to be drawn to the country - after which, crime rates increase).

Rightists (those who support unchecked capitalism) often allow corrupt, or inefficient owners of capital to become entrenched in power, causing stagnation. (One could argue that leftists who worship bureaucracy and allow corrupt corporatists to mingle with the bureaucracy are also guilty of this.)

Both lead to inefficiency in their own ways.

wrong thread buddy idk wtf this is relevant

>Can we cut to commercial please

sauce? i think i remember this

Sharif Clark interview with Don lemon

haha everybody knows that isn't true but I can't provide any evidence of my claim because it's just obvious.

Like...haven't you ever read a book!? I personally can't name a book but that's irrelevant. what matters is you being a racist right now.

Oh you think you aren't racist? That's exactly what racists say! Didn't you know that racists always act like they aren't racists? Hahaha I'm not racist, but it's different than when you aren't racist because I actually mean it and am not just saying it to prove I'm not racist, like just saying you're not a racist proves you aren't.

Haha you'd know that if you weren't a racist.

nah i was thinking of when the msnbc lady cut to a clip of a trump rally and a black trump supporter was talking about how racial divides were stupid and then it cut back to her and she was just bewildered

its crazy how that all actually believe that you can be racist and not know it. they really cant see how another sane human disagrees with them so they always include a hidden force like unconscious learned racism

Larry wilmore is fucking pathetic. He is trying to ride the BLM SJW gravy train but he is a fucking mulatto. His "comedy" is liberal jew pandering to the extreme and I hope "comedy central" fucking dies. Nothing funny has come out of comedy libtard jew central in like 10 years.

Equality of opportunity actually runs counter to equality of outcome.

But to stay on topic :

>being open minded and diverse is part of who we are

Larry Wilmore is racebait profiteering so much harder than anyone else it was so obvious it crashed his ratings and has tanked the whole brand of the tolerant left to some extent

OF COURSE IT RUNS COUNTER IT ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE WAY

>on campus
>hanging out in UC
>debating gun control
>cite a statistic
>"I BET YOU GET THAT FROM THE NRA!"
>explain that it's from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report
>"YEAH WELL I BET THE NRA DOCTORED IT!"
>pull laptop out and hold it up
>offer to pull up their website right there and show them the data tables I was referencing
>they desperately try to deflect the conversation or just continue to deny the numbers as propaganda

This exact situation has happened to me seven times.

I don't understand this obsession with some NRA boogeyman, or why they refuse to consider that there may be data out their that contradicts them.

holy shit i noticed that too, an old buddy of mine literally posted this on fb a day after philando castile was shot literally 24 hours after the event

the left NEEDS a boogeyman, without it they have no basis for any of their beliefs

Also:
>debating gun control
>I have facts and data
>they just vomit out appeals to emotion
>at no point do they ever counter, or even just address, what I said
>they convince themselves they won

An emotional appeal is not an argument. I'll get spammed with pictures of Molyneux for saying that, but it's the truth.

My favorite leftist debate tactic is the one those insufferable dickheads Cenk Uygur and David Pakman use whenever they're arguing with a conservative:

>So before we get to the debate, I just want to ask you about this thing you said in one of your articles. [Insert quote from 15 years ago with no context whatsoever]. Do you really believe that? Are you actually racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.?

They basically try to put their guest on the defensive and paint them as an evil monster to preemptively invalidate anything they're going to say.

>talking to some girl after class
>asks me why I'm right wing
>tell her that my family lived under communist oppression before coming to the United States
>she thinks my family are the bad guys for being "bourgeois"

in that moment my retarded kulak sides were in orbit

his fucking guests are just his fucking staff and interns that agree with him. He cant even get guests on his show.

>Professor: "Multiculturalism is beautiful and was the basis of every cosmopolitan empire like Rome, Tang china, and the Mughals

>Me: You said 3 weeks ago that africa is unstable because they combined wildly different and historically antagonistic ethno-religious groups into big nations

>Prof: GET OUT OF MY CLASS

lmao now that you mention it so true

actually?

>You're on the wrong side of history

It doesn't mean anything...

Here's one that's not so much conservative, as it is "adolescent boy:"
>Child: Here is my position and reasons for it
>Adult: I have no interest in discussing this with you
>Child: I am right, haha!

Grow up. No one owes you an education, or to debate you.

in this instance i was actually questioned first and baited to reveal my opinion (logical fact) to which she completely disregarded but went a step further to actually claim i had unconsciously been brainwashed into my opinion. go shill in reddit

i am owed a debate if i am literally engaged in a debate and "No one owes you an education, or to debate you" is a great sample of actual progressive debate techniques

The saddest one i've found is in gender dynamics.

>Child support is indentured slavery

>that doesn't even exist
>slavery in 2016?
>bring out the tin foil hats!
>deadbeat dads deserve it

The left is unapologetically defending SLAVERY.

>strawman
>personal insult
>"you are uneducated"
all classic leftist debate techniques

>its different, you just don't get it - i cant explain

My ex used to say shit like that all the time when I backed her into a wall. Stupid bitch.

...

>opportunity equality is all we can achieve, outcome equality is indefinable and a fools errand
>logical fact
It is rather obvious that you don't know the meaning of either "logical" or "fact."

But here's what she (probably) meant: conservatives define, hone and repeat positions within an echo-chamber where no new ideas are ever considered. Take, for example, Sup Forums. People who read, and talk to people with other opinions than their own, have heard these regurgitated talking points about a thousand times. They are new to you because you are a college sophomore who is poorly read. They are not new to anyone else. If someone tries to debate them with you, you will attempt to use your meager grasp of logic to shit-pick their presentation of the argument apart, until the point that the other person no-longer wishes to engage you, and you will then proclaim yourself the winner of the argument. No one cares, except you, so no one wants to engage you. It's why liberals think you're stupid. Protip? They're right.

just reading this i could get an aneurysm

stfu zach
>Sup Forums echo chamber
>positive rights are logically of philosophically sound
>the alternative is unsound
kys

No, NO! We cannot even achieve opportunity equality. And even if we could it would be undesirable!

People are not equal and should not be equal. Men destroy one another utterly without hierarchy. Hierarchy is good, it is natural and indispensable. Anarchy (the final outcome of all progressivism, socialism, Christianity, ect) is the most vile form of social (dis)organization.

also liberals look down on anyone who disagrees i am used to it

true

>considering the opponent to be propagandized
>ad hom
>more ad hom
>picking apart an argument is bad
>no one cares except you
>you are stupid

all classic progressive techniques

all so hurt

You didn't even have to be bourgeois to be oppressed by the commies. I'm Russian-Ukranian and I have a ton of family that was oppressed, particularly religious people. One of my great grandpas or something was a priest, and all his land was taken so that it would be redistributed and worked. When they took it he had a fully functioning farm there. He visited a year later and all the plants were dead, and all his animals were also either dead or starving. He apparently disappeared after that.

I also have family that were "Old Believers" (extremely orthodox Christians), and there are stories of Bolsheviks coming to their enclaves (they lived apart from the rest of society cause they've been persecuted for decades) and simply massacring them.

Fuck leftists, they don't know shit, they lived in what is basically a liberal utopia their whole life, and they don't understand the reality of communism whatsoever, it ALWAYS leads to oppression, cause they don't realize that not everyone agrees with their ideology. There are many other ideologies once can take that would be successful, but communism states that anyone who isn't a commie should be executed, just read the communist manifesto it's right there, along with a bunch of other bullshit.

Oh and I'm not even talking about the sheer destruction of all culture that happens, russia went from beautiful landscapes and nature, to disgusting commie blocks. God I fucking hate commie blocks, I went back to Russia last summer, and every city looked the same outside the cultural centers, simply rows upon rows of gray, lifeless commie blocks. I couldn't tell the difference between St. Petersburg, Moscow, Novosibirsk, or Tyumen.

>Fuck leftists, they don't know shit, they lived in what is basically a liberal utopia their whole life, and they don't understand the reality of communism whatsoever, it ALWAYS leads to oppression, cause they don't realize that not everyone agrees with their ideology.
they realize people disagree they just think those who disagree are evil and dumb

>If you would just read the Quran you could see what barbaric values Islam purports
>enough. You're getting angry and I want to change the topic

EVERY FUCKING TIME. WHEN YOU GET THEM IN A CORNER THEY SHUT DOWN THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE YOU'RE 'TOO ANGRY' OR 'UPSETTING THEM'. NOT ONCE HAS ANYONE REFUTED MY POINTS, THEY SAY 'THAT'S NOT A DEBATE, THAT'S AN ARGUMENT' LIKE THERE'S A FUCKING DIFFERENCE REEEEEEEEEEE

Their ultimate debate tactic is to deny the biological reality about race.

If you can't tell the truth about that, you can't tell the truth about anything. That's why they seem to "win" a lot of debates and make the more right-wing person flustered: it's because the right-wing person can't tell the full truth.

right wing has noting to do with science and ethnic classifications its about political principles and logic. if someone were to believe in a difference of the races they would be fine with a rightism that doesn't acknowledge it because if that were true a meritocracy would be the true measure

you can logically BTFO a leftist for a million different reasons and not even acknowledge a difference between races

get a new buddy, friend

Same, my favorite is the


>What about Muslims

when discussing trump. I shut them down.

>I have read the Qua'ran. i know you haven't so your opinion of them means nothing.

Fucking HILARIOUS look on the cunts face.

No, you're exactly right. This is what I told my mother, who is the biggest anti-gun, pro-immigration, feminazi extremist Hillary voting cunt I've ever met.

They vote based on their emotions and not on facts. If I didn't truly look at what was going on, then I would probably still be a liberal cunt as well. As it is, I actually looked at the data and evidence and changed my views accordingly.

Liberals don't have that ability, because otherwise all data would contradict how they feel.

notice "old buddy" as in past tense lol. hes on a downward spiral of leftism yesterday he was a social democrat today hes a marxist its sad desu to see someone age and get more progressive whereas every other healthy human goes from progressive -> conservative while maturing

lmfao

The fact that "professors" like this exist is the very reason I will NEVER go to college or force my own children to go.

>Kulak
>Alive

How?

>mfw law professor (in a >90% white city, Kingston) tells me that multiculturalism made Canada a 'mosaic' not a 'melting pot'

>Dop
>You're getting angwy

The Motte and Bailey tactic
slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/

>So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.
>3. The feminists who constantly argue about whether you can be a real feminist or not without believing in X, Y and Z and wanting to empower women in some very specific way, and who demand everybody support controversial policies like affirmative action or affirmative consent laws (bailey). Then when someone says they don’t really like feminism very much, they object “But feminism is just the belief that women are people!” (motte) Then once the person hastily retreats and promises he definitely didn’t mean women aren’t people, the feminists get back to demanding everyone support affirmative action because feminism, or arguing about whether you can be a feminist and wear lipstick.

>Whoa pal, didn't know you were so invested. Actually it technically does not literally run.

There is literally no proof besides his side ho saying that he had a CCW in the video.

This is the same side ho that posted videos of the two of them smoking weed with her 4 y/o daughter in the car.

This is the same guy who posted "Happy Crip-mas"

This is the same guy who match the description of an armed robbery suspect and was driving a car that was suspected to be involved.

This is the same guy who had weed in the car while he was carrying a weapon.

Let's paint a clearer story:

>Cop sees a car and individual who have a BOLO alert

>Cop pulls them over, tells them it's a busted tail light so they don't get suspicious

>Both clearly high

>Maybe the guy said he had a gun, maybe he didn't, either way he started reaching for something, probably just his id, but the cop told him to stop

>Guy is way to high to follow instructions, keeps going well after the cop said stop

>Guy gets shot

>Side ho starts filming

There is your real story

Were you demonstrating progressive techniques or were you actually trying to argue? I am confused.

FTFY

>tfw my dad says I've been brain washed about a dozen times over the course of one meal when I try to talk to him about politics

He's supposed to be a smart guy goddamnit.

I don't get how police shootings and gun laws are related, besides that they have to be more on edge. Or is the point that they have to keep doing mental gymnastics to link every topic to every other topic?

You can destroy anyone about race just by talking about the social effects of diversity.

>leave out context
>move goal posts
>censor
>gaslight
>incomplete information
>hypocrisy

You'll find most of these in any Huffpo/mother jones/ article.

Not saying the rest of the media isn't shit as well.

Me: Meme Meem Big meme

Her: Anti-meme.

Me: No

??????

Here's my example.

Doesn't matter what I get into a debate about these days, but TO NO FAIL, no matter if what I've said is legitimate or not, the person's response lately has been this:

>No one who supports Trump has the right to speak about (insert topic)

I was literally commenting on a post about an ex-Apple exec making marijuana edibles prettier and told someone that the term "user friendly", which was used in the article headline, meant that it was more attractive to adults than to children because of they're unusual shape.

Response: hurr durr it was a joke, you're stupid for voting Trump so you can judge me.

This has happened every single time the past two months. Politics were not once mentioned.

Const?

wow that's a dank may may :DDDD

which of you fags did that?

>no one cares except you
But that's pretty much the opposite of what liberals claim.

>WE SHOULD HELP THOSE POOR PEOPLE
>HOW CAN YOU BE SO HEARTLESS (cue 808s)
>YOU ARE A DISGUSTING HUMAN BEAN FOR NOT GIVING X AMOUNT OF YOUR SALARY IN REPARATIONS/DONATIONS

Protip: you're a nigger

SilConstphin

kek

I didn't post shit.

>Guy just starts ironically shitposting when his argument fails

Had this happen multiple times outside Sup Forums. Thank God the idiot who did it finally left the place.

more like:
me: "opinion"
her: "youre stupid and cant think independently"

>trusting any Judeo-Christian belief
the one true faith will always be Kek, praise him

>cue 808s

Imagine having a plastic injection molded grinning Donatello mask manufactured by a chink plastered above your rotting and decomposing neurons and neural synapses for all of eternity.

me

twitter.com/Baku0190
no bully ~

There's a reason why the Kikes Killed Jesus.

>needless pretention
>whining about your opponents having an "echo chamber" that you can argue in freely
>pointlessly long paragraph that can be summed up just with 1 sentence "You're stupid, my opinions are right, but I won't debate them"
10/10 Actual progressive debate techniques. You win.

Disregard a source because it isn't peer reviewed to shit.
>peer review snob.

>Link government source
>Instant later they link something "retorting" it without even reading what I posted
>They link a shitty literally who news agency

I got kicked out of a bar after getting into a debate with the bar tender after he overhead me talking about the two shootings of armed black men. He cut into my conversation with my sister's husband to tell me I'm wrong, and that he had a CCW so the officer is an idiot. I showed him the picture with the gun on his lap, and asked if a CCW gives you the right to reach for a weapon in a traffic stop. His face went red and he started calling me a racist after I also said a 2 time felon and sex offender with a gun (his third felony) shouldn't even make news when he gets shot.

Not allowed back there because I'm racist. I didn't pay, and don't want them to have my money anyways.

Earlier today I told a homo that sexual promiscuity is a sign of a declining empire. I linked him my book that was written by some British knight written in 1976. He didn't think "It looked scientific."

It's obvious why they do this it's to disregard anything that hasn't been through the PC filter of academia.

I was driving to Vegas with my dad this weekend and this happened.

>So... RNC is going to Dump Trump! Heh heh.
>No they're not. They just passed a ruling to stop that.
>What's your source? That's just Trump Propaganda
>No actually, its on Fox.

Some time later:
>Did you hear Trumps VP pick?
>Yes.
>Apparently he tried to back out of it at the last minute!
>What's your source? Hillary Propaganda?
>CNN.
>Yeah and their source is a random twitter post.


Point is:
>Everything bad about Trump = Real without Question
>Everything good about Trump = Where's your source on that Trump Propaganda?

>posts "nobody asked for your opinion"
>told, "as a matter of fact, they did"
>"yeah well, your opinion is wrong!"

go home kid

>Your stats might be correct but I'm offended by the way you presented them

I'm paraphrasing but I legitimately had someone tell me that

It was the only time I'd bothered to get into an argument about guns and It was definitely the last time I'm ever going to bother

Essentially she was mad that I was so blatantly showed her statistics that the abnormally high gun crime rates in the US are caused by Blacks, and that vast majority (90%+) of shootings are done with handguns without first going through the necessary jumping hoops to condition her fragile brain before the redpills were dropped.

When all else fails,
call him a Cuck.

He's not a felon?

full story annon?

Nice reading comprehension bucko