ITT: How to debate SJW's, apologists, leftists, ect?
It seems that too often it ends up just being two people shouting to eachother, neither listening to anything but themselfes. And then both parts walks away, thinking that they spoke with wisdom and truth themselfes while the other person was just a ranting crackpot.
What devious tactics and arguments do you use to get under their skin and into their head where you plant irrefutable facts and arguments to initiate the process of making them change their political/SJW/... views?
>>73173372
only ironic debate is advisable. if you unironically debate a retard you just look retarded along with them. personally i wouldn't even recommend ironic debate
>>73173372
That's the point of debate. The other side will never be swayed by what you say. It's the audience listening that matters.
>>73173676
I'm not really talking about some public speak you're making.
Just scenarios where you meet some faggot at a party or something and he tries to convince you that niggers is not overrepresented in crime statistics
>>73173372
sisyphus is that you?
>>73173372
>How to debate SJW's, apologists, leftists, ect?
Pointless. Just make fun of them.
its pretty hard, cuz they're borderline retarded.
BUt if you first try to do it unsarcasticly make sure to:
1.Make sure its a 1v1, dont engage against a crowd, then they'll just go apeshit on you and laugh at every hatefact you throw at them and declaure themselves the winners, as they are a group.
2. The majority of them usually try to turn the debate into a semantics argument, if you sense that they try to turn the debate into soimething like that just pull a full stop and say "i use (x defenition) when i talk about (term)",.
3. Make sure they are consistent when it comes to SJW. Very many SJW, mostly feminists, say one hard statement such as "kill all men, all evil is a result of imperialism, which again is a result of white naionalism", then when you try to argue about thet point they will revert the discussion to "feminism", while using the standard "feminism = equality under law between sexes" defenition. WHich is a wierd form of strawman, which is hard to adress.
4. And this is the most important part.
Dont.
>>73173372
>ITT: How to debate SJW's, apologists, leftists, ect?
Why though? The only appropriate (yes, appropriate) response is to troll them. They don't debate. They don't even care to.
>>73173372
Also, if you could reason with an SJW, an apologist, or a leftist then they wouldn't be those things anymore.
>>73173372
nobody is ever going to be swayed by any argument, no matter how well crafted and backed with facts, especially not in some emotional heat of the moment at some party surrounded by their friends
anything could tumble out of their mouths followed by some colorful epithet and the only ground you would have gained is to be known as that one faggot at that party last weekend
they cant be bargained with
they cant be reasoned with
they dont know facts, or logic - only dem feels
and they absolutely will not stop
ever
until they get a strong, generous dose of life experience outside of their bubbles and figure shit out on their own
just smile and nod anon
just smile and nod
You out-SJW them so they leave you alone or make their beliefs seem radical.
>debate SJW's, apologists, leftists, ect?
Why?
