/lit/, please recommend some books to improve conversational, debating and persuasion skills. What else is there aside from Aristotle's Rhetoric and Machiavelli?I already know about 48 Laws of Power and How to Win Friends and Influence People; the latter is terrible.
>>7337538
Just B Urself by A. Normie
>>7337542
this is the best book out there OP
you have to get it
>phil major
>become good at keeping the argument on topic when arguing with other men
>become completely lost arguing with women, baffled by their structureless diatribe
>don't know where to begin with refuting their non-point
>mfw they think they won because they didn't raise a point to be properly refuted
>>7337574
This is true. However, women do have their own form of rhetoric; it's known to us as the fallacies.
>>7337538
try /pol/
>>7337574
How to win debates against women:don't
browse other boards
and don't be afraid to show your power level
>>7337585
>books
No, /pol/ can't read.
For rhetoric and debate, why not study from primary sources? Cicero, Quintilian, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Churchill, JFK. You could even learn a lot from Obama, he has a very convincing way of axiomatically building an argument, drawing a logical conclusion, all the while dispelling potential counterarguments as he goes. It's very persuading, and as you listen to more and more of his speeches closely you'll get familiar with his usual rhetorical flourishes.
I don't know of any 'handbooks' on manipulation and persuasion in the style of the the 48 Laws. Greene draws all his examples from history, so you may be best served closely studying the political machinations behind a historical period, or following noted political strategists like Bismarck or Talleyrand. The advantage of drawing from relatively esoteric first-hand sources is that your 'rivals' are less likely to have come across the same tactics, and you're less likely to have a situation of null information advantage, like you would have if you employed specific tactics from something like 48 Laws.
>>7337574
The worst is that they did win. You're either the Alpha or The Beta
Everything else is just for show
>>7337538
>Aristotle's Rhetoric
Are there any other works from antiquity similar to this?
>>7337593
how are you supposed to debate a book lol what a fag
>>7337596
This is great advice, thank you. It's strange how esoteric this skill is when it has been so incredibly important throughout history. I guess, as you say, wider knowledge would ruin the potency. Have you any pointers on how to analyse these sources, or where I could learn such a skill?
>>7337586
All you need to do is remain measured and mature throughout it and 99% of the time the woman will get too emotional and just start insulting you. At that point instead of lowering to her level you choose to be even more diplomatic than you were before without even a hint of passive aggression.
Granted, in the moment this is all much harder to stick with than it sounds. But it's the best play.
>>7337615
They don't realise it but it's all a test. Women aren't arguing about the points, they are wearing you down to expose your true character. Think about it, for survival they don't need a correct model of the world, they just need to correctly assess men for highly quality genes or providing ability.
>>7337615
>>7337622
To bring this back to the original point, understanding rhetoric and proper argumentation allows you to easily dismiss their poor reasoning without becoming reactionary. When you realise that a retard is a retard, you don't try to convince them that your calculations are correct. Use your superior knowledge to reassure yourself and be unmoved in your position.
>>7337622
>They don't realise it but it's all a test. Women aren't arguing about the points, they are wearing you down to expose your true character.
Most of them, yeah. But very seldom you will get the occasional woman who does know her shit and is genuinely interested in an exchange of ideas, but you can usually intuit in the first few minutes whether you're dealing with a no-bullshit thinker or a woman who has convinced herself that she is a "debater" when really all she likes to do is argue like every other woman.
SJWs are the worst for this. The fucking worst. Even if you are right if you've used one ounce of passive aggression in the debate they switch it all around and somehow make you look like an asshole. The only play you have there is to outclass them whilst you outpace them. You lower yourself to simple arguing and you've lost. Really you need to treat it like a private game with yourself the whole time and see if you can just stay in control of the conversation in a mature way because you know that you're dealing with an emotional harpy.
