Mainstream media members and social justice warriors everywhere remain outraged. Everything Donald Trump does, or says, is under constant scrutiny by people with unearned moral superiority. Whether it’s ditching the press pool for a steak, or criticizing a highly overrated broadway play, even the most monotonous tasks are receiving front page coverage. While criticism of Trump is expected, the mainstream media is crying wolf far too often.
Unsurprisingly, we’ve seen a boon of snowflakes that are shocked, appalled and offended by everything that the president elect says. Twitter, which is a breeding ground for social justice warriors due to their censorship of differentiating opinions, is running rampant with overly sensitive SJWs and incredulous mainstream media members.
— Anne T. Donahue (@annetdonahue) November 18, 2016
— imnoonespecial (@upserny) November 21, 2016
— Elvira Medved (@EliMelielie) November 13, 2016
We should avoid meaningless confrontation with people who can’t be swayed, however, the reality of the matter is that at some point, you may be entrenched in a debate with someone on the left. Rather than not preparing, you should arm yourself with the debate techniques required to defeat a leftist in a debate, maintain your image, while destroying their argument as much as is possible. By channeling historical, and contemporary sources, as well as my own experiences, let’s dive into the techniques that we should use to win an argument against a leftist nut.
Remember: the goal isn’t to sway your opposition – it’s to influence the observers. Chances are that your leftist opponent won’t vaciliate no matter how logical and reasonable your premise is. Lefties will shun your facts.
Equal Moral Grounds
When you debate a leftist, they’ll attempt to distract you by assaulting your character with unwarranted, baseless claims. Being labeled a racist, misogynist, bigot, or white nationalist are just a few of the many buzzwords that will be pelted your way. It’s worth mentioning that you should have thick skin – don’t flinch, nor be affected by the insipid, vacuous insults.
The problem inherent with debating a leftist, is that they will pull the “racist” card. Once you’re called a racist, you aren’t left with many options. You can’t retort with facts, because according to the them (the leftist/observers), you have yet to address the racist accusations. While some pragmatic observers may see what game the leftist is playing, most will not. It’s important to note, that before you begin to put forth your argument, you should ensure that the debate takes place equal moral grounds.
You may feel the urge to throw slanderous accusations back at them, but it won’t progress the debate, and you’ll come off just as craven as them. What you want to do, is come off as calm and composed. Don’t retort with “I’m not racist” because you’re essentially proving that you value their point, and feel it a point worthwhile of rejection. You want to inform them that you won’t continue the debate so long as he/she continue to slander you with unfounded claims.
“This debate won’t progress any further if you keep slandering me with false, baseless, erroneous claims. When you stop with the ad hominem rhetoric, we can continue and attempt to advance the discussion”
What this does, is put the leftist into a position where they only have two options.
1. They call you a racist again. In this case, they lost the debate. They prove to you observers that they were never interested in a serious debate, and that it wasn’t worth your time anyways. The snowflake will then retreat back to their safe space.
2. You’re asked to explain your point further. From here, you can have a civil debate – at least for a little while, until something triggers your opposition (as is likely).
The left is slowly beginning to realize that identity politics don’t work anymore.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), is a German philosopher who wrote a book called ‘The Art of Controversy‘, in which he details 38 stratagems for dealing with controversy; arguments, debates, insults, etc. I recommend that any man read the entire book – his stratagems are extremely effective in a debate.
One of the most useful techniques he suggests, is the use of a reframe. Listen to what your opposition says, then reframe and attack his or her premise from a different position.
“Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite difference sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted” Schopenhauer, 3rd stratagem
“Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.” Schopenhauer, 6th stratagem
A modern example of these stratagems in the context of a debate with a leftist would be on gun control. Suppose you’re debating a leftist who parrots typical mainstream media balderdash and asks you why you don’t want to ban assault rifles – another concocted term. Instead of retorting “No, I don’t want to ban assault rifles”, a proper retort would be to attack their argument from a different angle. They’re pressuring you on assault rifles, but where’s the consistency? Ask them why don’t propose a ban on all guns – including handguns, since they are ‘responsible’ for more deaths each year. The key here is to find inconsistencies in their arguments, and with leftists it’s not hard to do.
Whether you like him or not, Ben Shapiro is an excellent and dare I say it – perhaps the best debater currently in the political sphere. He has yet to turn down a debate, and when he does debate someone, he normally eviscerates them. He’s a conservative, who has said that he personally aligns most closely, policy-wise, to Ted Cruz, so while he doesn’t share all of the same views that we in the manosphere do, he holds a lot of the same principles – small government, immigration reform, and a realist regarding Islamism.
During June 2016, entrenched in a Politicon debate on institutional racism against a leftist lesbian named Sally Kohn, Shapiro applied the above principles beautifully. Below is the video, and instead of me quoting the entire piece, check out his article, in which an excerpt plus analysis on this debate is available.
Once you’ve created an equal moral footing, which I admit, is difficult – leftists are exposed. The entire foundation on which they stand has been toppled, leaving them naked and open to attack. To do this, you need simply question them about specific policies, stats, and further rock their foundation. Leftists absolutely hate answering questions, since their entire arsenal lies in character assassination. Ask numerous questions, which while undoubtedly catch them off-guard, as most leftists only practice moral rhetoric.
Returning to Schopenhauer:
“State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent’s admissions” Schopenhauer, 7th stratagem
Socrates is another famous philosopher that is known for this method of winning an argument. Socratic questioning involves asking a lot of questions, which creates a situation in which both parties are thinking about their premises rather than expressing their exaggerated opinions. It’s idealistic to think that a leftist will think calmly, and logically, but again, your goal in debating a leftist isn’t to convince them; it’s to convince the audience.
While it’s not ideal to become entrenched in a debate with leftists due to the fact that they will castigate you for no reason whatsoever, with the election of Trump, there’s a high probability that you will be forced to face a leftist foe eventually. Should you be unprepared, your ill-conceived responses would incite further slander. It’s best to think of leftists like a woman. Emotional, irrational, but they can be disarmed – with a combination of techniques such as the ones listed above. It takes practice. You won’t slay leftists overnight. The most important piece of advice I can give, is to do your research, and don’t talk about subjects which you know nothing about.