As a debater and with your power level, how well would you do on a argument in person?

As a debater and with your power level, how well would you do on a argument in person?
Personally I know the facts but can't articulate well enough to easily win arguments. How about you?

Not well at all because I would get pissed as soon as someone says something fucking stupid and wrong.

It helps if your viewpoints aren't stupid shit like, "Hitler was alright" or "niggers deserve death."

Quite well. I've tried before.

Practice, practice, practice.

I don't argue on Sup Forums anymore because whenever I argue and they say something retarded the primitive portion of my brain instinctually tells me that I should find them, beat them with a rock, and then procreate with the nearest female to confirm my dominance.

What's wrong with those?

If its hard for you to defend your part just dismantle the part of the opponent and stand your ground.
Also practice more, this should help.

Eh, not bad.

I dunno, last many arguments i've had involve the other person screaming at me and freaking out pretty good.

Don't even wanna say stories cause pretty cringe. But yeah it's been fairly nasty. Sup Forums got my argument confidence up, I thought I was a pretty approachable and reasonable person. But people just freak the fuck out whenever you mention something that isn't straight outta the frankfurt school.

tfw lost a debate to a marxist recently

I learned that I shouldn't try to argue off their premises and instead try to argue their premises are false

didn't mean to quote the leaf

They will never win any arguments IRL.

Easy, cut into center then push
Open the debate with the issue and then push for a center-ish solution asap.
If election, follow up by saying your candidate is closer to your center solution.

>Revealing your power level in real life

>being a cuck

Very well. I know how to push people's buttons and when there are facts to back me up there isn't a better feeling. I don't really get worked up either, I'm fairly level-headed. Sociology in college was fantastic for me, didn't make any friends there though.

I'm pretty fucking good. I'd say on the fly I'm good at getting a point across.

what he said
>implying reasonable debates exist any more
any controversial topic is basically doomed to end up in a shouting match because everyone's a bunch of faggots who can't handle dissent

When arguing with liberals, the rule of thumb is that you are debating to convince the audience and not the liberal, because liberals are mentally ill.

Put some effort in, write down the websites for your sources and tell them to go look it up. The audience will.

never lost against my liberal school president in a debate as a full on nationalist.

take notes from the god of debate Ben Shapiro

Ben is great with facts and arguments but terrible at communicating them in a powerful and effective/convincing way. Sounds kind of like an old cassette tape being eaten.

really well as people are mostly terrible at articulating themselves.
The only problem is if you're up against a group that self reinforces itself at the childish ruse that since they are the majority their views are right no matter the evidence.
Best to talk to people in smaller groups or one to one, then it's a cake walk.

Talk about safety, the things you know will trigger their feelings. Basically I'm a jew when I speak, as I combine emotional anecdotes with statistics. Seen people shed tears because they were legitimately touched / concerned

I'm a stuttering sperg who probably says 20 words in a day

I'm not the greatest. I also tend to drop debates/arguments/discussions quite often because i don't see the point. People won't even agree with facts I present. I have to prove them somehow in the middle of a discussion that what I said is indeed a fact.

Plus, most people are never satisfied until they "win" the exchange. So at that point I just listen and nod

Stay on course

People will always try to divert your argument, never give in to that

Now I mostly just point out when things they are are not arguments until they get flustered and fuck off

But each time I try to state the source and show pictures and statistics of it, They say the information is manipulated on the internet and not a vial source of information.
How should I act before this?

This is my general feeling. In order for a worthwhile exchange to take place, the other party needs to be open to changing their mind. This condition is rarely met. It's a waste of energy and a headache in the current year +1 given all the ramifications of having unpopular opinions.

Go die you fucking cuck, useless son of a bitch.

I generally am more knowledgeable than people my age and lefty college types in particular can't really handle everything I can throw out. But older professionals can make me look stupid, and I know when to shut up and pretend I'm apolitical.

You're talking to the people listening to the conversation, you will rarely change someone's opinion if they are confident enough to argue for it.

Edgy. Here's your (You).

Read the book: "How to win friends and influence people" it's an ancient book from 1936.
You never go into an argument. You bait people with feelings and facts that appeal to them, towards your view.

Someone that is 100% sure that they are right will most of the time not admit that they are wrong because conceding that you're wrong means that you fucked up and most people aren't willing to admit that. What I'm trying to say is people should be more humble and open minded when arguing.

Re-bump my question

because some of your red pills are blue.

just like anyone using the term "red pilled"

by not getting into an argument to begin with. If you do, it is because there are people listening in without an opinion and your goal is to influence the crowd. Present something and let the people come up with the correct answers.

As a general rule, people get more attached to whatever view they've defended. As they've invested energy and feelings into that act. Both you and the other side is more convinced of being right after the debate.
If one side loses, they do not believe they're wrong, they only think that they were treated badly by the other side and have less respect for that person.

>risking triggering the Merchant
JFK did that, when he tried to get the Treasury to print its own money, as opposed to the (((Federal Reserve))). Six months after the executive order to do this was signed, he was assasinated.

I have some limited rhetorical training, and I've read the classical treatises on it.
I usually win debates, if only because I feel nothing and usually the other person freaks out at some point, making me look calm and reasonable and the other guy like a fucking ape.

Just make sure you never accept their worldview. If you argue off their ideals, their view will win. Argue their ideals are faulty and wrong.
As a plus, this triggers them harder than any "Hitler did nothing wrong" ever could.

im a master shit stirrer i just do it to wind people up

I unironically say "Really makes you think" now.
Thanks Sup Forums.