What are red flags that instantly turn you off from debating with a person?
For me it's moving the goalpost, it just shows to me that the person isn't mature enough to handle a proper argument.
>>230141
There's no redflag to not debeating a person.
If you refuse to debate, then your opponent is right. If you really think the person is stupid, you should be even more lean to debeating him. If he's so dumb, how come you can't debeat him?
>>230141
Anybody that uses reddit or takes pride in being PC
>>230141
The moment they start spewing buzzwords or immediately place themselves on an unassailable pedestal.
"How could you think that way, it's 2015!"
"What's wrong with you? Don't you like logic and reason?"
"We need equity not equality."
>>230182
You don't actually believe these things, do you?
>>230184
Anyone that uses ad reddit arguments or takes pride in being /pol/
Someone that uses the words "conservatie" or "liberal". I don't even care about the concept, if you take left vs right seriously you are beyond fucking help.
>>230182
I'm sure you already know about the saying of the bird playing chess, so I'm not even gonna bother writing it.
>>230182
What's the point of debating with someone who keeps raising the bar so that they are never wrong?
It's a waste of time.
>>230200
>"What's wrong with you? Don't you like logic and reason?"
What's ironic is that 99% of the time people who say that act illogical as fuck.
At least in my experience.
I do my best to be open minded because to me history is relative and it's a matter of perspective. That said I've wasted so much time with people who go "In X Times Y were so Z-ist!" that I've given up on it. It's a headache because rarely is anything new or interesting said or discussed. Worse is the PC perspective because there's never any objectivity only recrimination.
>>230231
Some people just don't understand the concept of context I guess
>>230141
Here, people who uses words like "marxist" out of very specific contexts. Ironically, in real life it's "fascist".
Another redflag more specific to this place is when someone is clearly a fan (of anything, an historical character, a movement, an event, a civilization) or a blind nationalist, not a person interested on learning or teaching beyond personal preferences.
Any blatant logical fallacies. "If you support X then you must want Y", Hitler did X, and strawman arguments tend to be common.
>>230141
Anyone who steadfastly denies the existence of Anal Birth, despite the manifold evidence posted for it.
>>230258
That's oddly specific
Anyone beyond convincing. There is no point in debating someone who is beyond convincing.
>>230301
So someone who moves the goalpost?
>>230310
Not him, but it can be different. Take your run of the mill Holocaust debate, and its inevitable stormfag contingent.
A lot of them won't necessarily move the goalposts, they'll just disbelieve any bit of evidence with incredibly flimsy excuses that indicates it actually happened.
>>230310
Not quite. Before I get into a debate I'll sometimes ask if they think they will be able to be convinced to change their mind on the subject or not. (i.e. if they are beyond convincing )
If nothing can convince them, it's not even worth trying.
>>230141
>It's [current year]!
>B-but- FEELINGS!
>You're a nazi fascist racist homophobic right winger!
>You're on the wrong side of history!
>*they start moving away from the original topic and start attacking anything about you or what you said for as long as they can*
>We're all equal.
>Why aren't you conforming to my version of logic and reason?
>But this is a REVOLUTION and you CAN'T STOP US you [nickname of a villain character from a dystopian future young adult novel]
Pretty much defines progressives/marxists/redditors in a nutshell.
Anyone that tries to use movies or any form of entertainment as part of their debate.
>But I watched this show on the History channel that said so, so I'm right!
>believes the official narrative of the holocaust
>stormfags calling you a 'leftist' (still believing in the left right dichotomy) or eve a Jew for disagreeing with them. also all their buzzwords
>Marxists from /lit/ still pulling the 'communism hasnt been tried' meme holy shit
>strawman, ad hominem
>people very obviously arguing history to make it fit in their political agenda
>>230200
>"What's wrong with you? Don't you like logic and reason?"
This, and also people who throw around stuff like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" instead of discussing the topic like an adult.
>>230141
the minute they start replying with memes instead of actual arguments
>>230446
So you just don't debate liberals?
>>230230
Thing is, in such debates what is called "logic" is actually "intuition," which most of the time is illogical.
>>230488
But things like moving the goalpost and strawmen ARE what prevent an ''adult dicussion'' in the first place.
>>230467
Usually deniers are a bouquet of red flags. Pictures don't lie, Storm'mo
>>230547
thats pretty much someone from /pol/ in a nutshell
>>230547
Is true complete logic even possible in humans I wonder?
There's always a level of emotional bias, even if it's minimal.
Someone that can't even begin to fathom that there are two sides to every story.
>"You're ancestors were evil! That's why they fought the war!"
No man goes to war believing he's in the wrong, and it's important if your reading or studying about a war that you read what both sides have to say, what their perspectives are.
>>230141
when someone tries to debate on a Tibetan prayer wheel
>>230553
>picture of Soviet gulags prove the holocaust
>>230640
Well done proving his point.
Malice.
The one that peeves me the most is the Christian overindulgence in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and insisting that the brand of Christianity as they practice and interpret it is the only true Christianity.
>people bringing up psychology as it's factual
>not even from a respectable source, just from some shitty news site with the headline ''muh study says''
>>230528
>>read a book
>People who expect me to spoon-feed immensely complicated concepts to them when they're trying to have an argument about something whilst clearly having made no attempt to educate themselves
>>we've been through this already
>People just fucking ignoring my arguments, bringing up points that I've already refuted
>>we're not having this conversation
>Ok this one is pretty annoying, I'll grant you that
>>230687
I'm not entirely sure what kind of fallacy it is, but the Christian insistence that their interpretation of Jewish holy texts is the only valid one just strikes me as annoying and pigheaded, especially when it's a very tortured explanation of said text.
>>230570
I dislike anyone that uses pronouns that imply the people in the argument are part of the sides of historical events that they are not personally responsible for. For instance, if I was talking to a Japanese person around my age (20s) and they say something like "You bombed us" (referring to the atomic bombings, obviously I am an American). It indicates to me that they have some strongly-held personal opinion and they're probably not going to be discussing from a position of impartiality. As a former soldier, I've done some dubious shit in my time, but I can't be held responsible for things I had no ability to influence.
>>230732
What irks me even more is the Protestant insistence that Catholicism is not Christianity and that none of the criticisms of Catholicism can otherwise apply to them. Furthermore the batshit mental gymnastics employed by some of the loopier Protestants to deny any sort of continuity between Catholicism and Protestantism boggles my fucking mind.
>>230200
>"How could you think that way, it's 2015!'
>If a person uses it once
Okay, I get the point. What else does you have to support your argument
>uses it more than once
You have absolutely no argument to support your claims. At least google it and read the wikipedia page or something.
>>230141
>somehow get into debate/discussion about whether animals have awareness
>"Quantum Mechanics says that even atoms are aware of their existence'
Done. Then and there.
>>230141
Ok so the thing that really shits me off is when someone thinks that dumping copypasta is a valid argument. It's fucking cheating.
If you post some image macro that makes like 10 separate arguments in, and let's say all of them are wrong, and it takes me 5-10 minutes of googling to debunk any given wrong point, then it takes me the better part of an hour to debunk the thing that took you like 10 seconds to post.
The fact that you can just throw arguments out without having to spend any time on them puts the other guy a severe disadvantage it doesn't matter how wrong or right you are, no one is autistic enough to take the effort to fight such a one sided battle.
It's fucking shit, most of the time you can clearly tell the person doing the posting haven't even read their own fucking images.
>>230528
"never argue with a stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
~Mark Twain~
People who are seemingly incapable of entertaining any opposing viewpoint.
People who attribute to their ideological opponents the most malicious intentions.
People who resort to straw man and ad hominem arguments.
People who say something to the effect of "I took a class/read a book/attended a seminar on this topic so what I say is obviously correct and final and anyone who disagrees is wrong."
Related to above, anyone who says "yeah, well my sociology/AFAM/gender studies professor agrees with me and says that I'm right so anyone who disagrees is wrong."
>>230528
>It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person, etc, etc.
True in my experience.
>>230200
this is so lame, if you really were dedicated to debating you would put the time into refuting the buzzwords that they use. all people fall back on such phrases and the whole premise of the OP is that there exists some ideal debating partner.
>>230794
>"Quantum Mechanics says that even atoms are aware of their existence'
Everytime I try to talk with a person in real life about physics, I find that my shitty basic knowledge about astronomy and physics are still miles better than a lot of people I would consider educated and cultured.
So that something that stupid could be uttered here in 4chan is not really surprising unfortunately.
>What are red flags that instantly turn you off from debating with a person?
people who actually think
>>230182
>If you refuse to debate, then your opponent is right.
though I suppose turning off from debating them would just give them the satisfaction, but I don't mind
>>230551
A proper case of "straw man" is one thing. But that's not usually how the term is used on the internet. It's rarer than you suggest.
For instance, in academic philosophical papers, it's common to describe a certain point of view that some other people subscribe to, and then to explain how that point of view is wrong.
It's perfectly legitimate to do that, but some people on the internet like to scream "straw man" in such situations, to shut down all discussion.
>>230745
It's the same as people who try to drag emotion into a debate. "You are a descendant of 'X' and 'X' did 'Y' to 'Z', therefore you're argument is invalid." They can't refute what you have to say, so they try to make it personal so that you're no longer having a discussion, but you're now defending yourself over something that you had no control over.
Sociology, fuck anything from that useless field.
>>230827
>AFAM
What's that even?
Do I wanna know?
>>230141
Debating semantics.
I fucking hate it when somebody completly ignore your point just to argue what words mean.
"Islam was written by and for martial tribes". "YEAH BUT "ISLAM" LITERALLY MEANS "PEACE" !"
>>230978
AFAM = African American
>>230978
>Sociology, fuck anything from that useless field.
Sociology has produced some good works. For example Moral Time by Donald Black which you can read for free here http://www.mediafire.com/view/ks6thp7l4psgodx/Moral_Time.pdf
It is a short, concise work that explores the nature and sources of conflict across various societies. At least read the preface before condemning all of sociology.
>>230830
When I was in the national guard, I was a squad leader in my platoon. One of my fellow squad leaders was a really smart guy I enjoyed debating with. We frequently agreed on the things we talked about, but sometimes we didnt.
During a deployment, we were driving around at night and got into an argument about gun control and whether or not it's safer for everyone to have guns or no one to have guns. He took one position and I took the other. After about 10 minutes, he replied to one of my claims with "Do you have the statistics on hand to back that up?" Since I was driving a humber in afghanistan, I had no statistics to back up my claim, and I asked him if he had statistics to back up his counter-claim. He didn't have any on him either, so we agreed arguing further was pointless and we would have to resume it some other time.
Even though I couldn't "win" that argument, I felt really happy that I was arguing with someone attempting to be as intellectually honest as I was. In my mind, that's the ideal debate partner. That was years ago, and I haven't experienced that before or since.
>>231134
I have similiar situations with my wife, it's all about being civil and not wanting to win at all costs in the end.
Appeal to emotion.
I can't lie to you and say it doesn't have a place in swaying the public but when it's just me and you having an argument and you whip out the crocodile tears I'm done.
>>230141
For me it's accusations without an explanations
Like they just blurt out their confusing and most likely inaccurate opinions and if you try to ask them to elaborate they're either going to blurt out an even less coherent opinion, accuse you of being a part of some enemy they probably have, or just straight up insult you.
If a person going to say something and expect to be taken seriously they should have an explanation attached to that statement or I just won't take them seriously and probably look down on those who do.
>>230182
So if I refuse to debate two people with mutually exclusive views that are different than mine, then they're both right even though their views contradict one another?
Interesting.
>>231344
I think it's fine in discussing issues of policy as long as you're suggesting that this horrible thing will happen as a result of [link between the thing they don't like and the thing neither of you like that is established with evidence].
i.e., it's fine to say "if we do x, millions of children will die!" if there's a good reason to believe millions of children would die as a result of x, and it's okay to feel strongly that it's bad for millions of children to die and to express that.
>>231134
>>231314
yeah I see what you mean. the minimum should be that they are civil. but even so I think debating with an insensitive partner is a good exercise in restraint and being able to dissect shitty arguments, even if they don't agree with you at the end. there's nothing i love more than keeping my cool when the other person chimps out
>>230200
>"How could you think that way, it's 2015!"
In a perfect world, that would be a strong point. But even in 1915 we still had bloodletting and in 1965 we still had shock therapy. Obsolete beliefs or forms of hate/discrimination don't normally correspond with the times. They can linger for as long as people still subscribe to them. The fact that we have racism and homophobia in 2015 isn't at all surprising considering how relatively short the time span from both the modern civil rights movement and gay rights movement to today is. That argument is more of a wish - that 2015 didn't have hate - than stating a point.
>>231344
If it's used poorly, I can see why that would be weak, but if someone appeals to emotion regarding a subject that would actually benefit from appeals to emotion (human rights, for instance) and it doesn't work on you, consider yourself a sociopath.
>>230141
Using the term "SJW." Says that this person thinks the internet is reality.
>>231789
I've honestly never heard it said outside of the Internet, and rarely outside of 4chan. Maybe I'm lucky.
They voted for Obama
Calling anything with a clear scientific basis in reality a social construct
"can't know nuffin", extreme relativism, nihilism and other intellectual black holes
>>231831
>he vote for mccain and romney
>>231831
What are some social constructs that have no scientific basis in reality? How are they different from social constructs with a scientific basis in reality? Do you mean to say there's no such thing as a social construction?
Refusal to move the debate beyond being literal.
Or refusing to touch upon what concepts are made of, especially when its a modern derivative of something older.
They post on 4chan
>>230141
Them being OP
appeals to emotion in order to disregard logic and facts
>>230687
Fuck off with your stupid ass misuse of that phrase. Christianity isn't some inborn trait that you can't get rid of. It's a religious belief system that you subscribe to and if you contradict it's teachings you aren't a Christian you knuckle dragging fedora shit. Are you a Christian too? Maybe you believing in the Christian God isn't necessary either so we can just call everyone a Christian. Fuck you. Get off this site and come back when you know the proper meanings of the words you use so you can make an argument that doesn't warrant the stupid ass hat meme.
>>230553
>pictures don't lie
Photo manipulation has been around for a long, long time, even if not public.
>>231717
I don't really have the stomach for it. The last time I discussed something serious my opponent burst into tears and started throwing things. Before that it was appeal to emotion and tu qoque while putting words in my mouth. It's like that image macro with the pidgeon.
>>232761
>Get off this site
autism lads
>>232761
>being an autist avatarfag
>literally naming your avatars things such as "fuck you"
lmao
>>230553
>implying the explanation and context of the photo can't be lies
>implying I can't write any caption I want and have people believe me because they weren't there
>>230258
Dude babies come out through the belly button when the mom is ready
>>230141
People who try to manipulate with emotions or take the debate very emotionally.
I literally hate this kind of shit.
>"How can you believe in capitalism. Look at the picture of this dead baby, this is the fault of capitalism. Or do you really think it's ok to kill people?"
>"How can you doubt that 6 million jews died in the holocaust? My grandmother was gassed 6 times in Auschwitz when she was 5 years old. You are literally holocausting her by saying that."
Also, people who are too dumb or delusional. I mean it's ok to discuss certain theories that most of the people disregard, but taking them too seriously makes me think I'm talking to a schizo.
>"Dude, aliens are totally real. They actually come from inside the Earth, which is hollow. Also, space doesn't exist. What you see in the sky is actually an illusion. And Obama is a reptilian who rapes children in his free time."
>"I'm telling you, black people created the ancient empires. Look at the statues and paintings on Romans, Egyptians ang Greeks - you can see negroid racial features. Also, Mozart was black."
>>233409
>opponent burst into tears
thats hilarious though. when people start getting emotional like that it becomes harder and harder for them to be rational; it means you won the debate and your civility triumphed over their feelings. I don't say reason triumphed though cause you could have been trolling them hard kek
Anyone using the word "privilege"
It means you are debating a person that will dismiss an argument based solely on who is making it
>I'm related to "insert historical figure"
Even if it's true, most people I've met who say shit like this just do it for some sort of bragging rights and it makes them look like they are fishing for compliments.
Whenever someone starts some kind of self-promoting chest-beating kind of shit (i.e. "I worked hard" or "they should do x" etc.), I instantly know they're a piece of shit. It's pretty much always anecdotal bullshit from people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Additionally, if they choose to rattle off the names of logical fallacies which they claim their opponents are using (whether they're using them or not) in lieu of actually making any attempt to support their own arguments, I know that any attempt to debate them will be pointless.
Another great one is when someone uses the phrase "[you/person] doesn't understand [x]" without explaining what it is they don't understand exactly or why they're supposedly wrong.
>>236525
Oh yeah, and another one that just occurred to me: changing the seriousness level of a debate. When you're having a casual discussion and suddenly he wants practically an MLA-format list of citations, or when you show up expecting a proper debate and he then he acts like the victim when you point out that he has shitty, lazily-constructed arguments with no evidence to back them up whatsoever.
Using Hitler as an example is an instant redflag for me
>>230141
>debate starts with a leading question
>debate starts with false premises
I'm not gonna bother with this shit. Also I won't tolerate people trying to change the meaning of words to suit them.
>Ugh
>Can you not?
>I can't even
That's when I know it's time to close the tab.
>>230200
>"How could you think that way, it's 2015!"
The second they start using their mythologized boogeyman as an argument
>muh Jews
>muh Patriarchy
>muh Communism
>muh Corporatism
>muh Illuminati
Etcetera. Presupposing you've figured out the absolute fundamental truth about all human interaction and deciding everything that isn't in line with it is wrong because of your presupposition makes a person an impenetrable fortress of circular logic and character assassination.
>>230258
Storkfags
>>233662
a bunch of dead jews in striped pajamas kind of speaks for itself, Storm'mo. In fact, if you hate the jews so much, why are you opposed to their mass eradication?
>>232761
wat
the capcha i answered asked me to identify all the pictures of wheelchairs. This is very relevant to your post because you must be mentally handicapt.
>>233662
pol is that away little buddy.
>>>>> /pol/
>>233737
only if you are chinese
>>230399
>lists red flags
>makes blanket statements
I kekd
>>230141
>red flags
anybody that supports islam is either criminal or clueless
end of story
Well as religiously educated person finding myself arguing in defense of Islam a lot lately there are many
>silly derogatory words like "Mudslime", "Poohammed", etc
>any mention of the word "taqiyya"
>constant accusations of being a Muslim
>persistent double standards "Muslims are violent... all muslims need to be killed"
>dealing in absolutes "all are this, all are that"
And finally
>Just the outright lies, statements they have put no research into and have just thrown out there in some vain attempt
>>230141
>moving the goalpost
Autism detected.
>>237069
A few more
>People who spam 4000 links in a post and claim victory because you cant slog through it all
>"ITS 2015!!!!" Fuck off with that completely empty statement
>Bringing up an old point already gone over
>Doing a strawman argument against something i never said (this is really fucking common here)
>>230310
No, because when someone moves the goalposts that means they've been convinced of an initial component of your argument, but have further disagreements which are incompatible with what you're arguing.
>>230141
>making blanket statements
Also, the biggest one
>making assumptions about my argument and then arguing those assumptions, not my actual argument
>>230723
>I'm a self-righteous cunt who takes my own assuredness as an infallible argument that I am right!
>>237069
>myself arguing in defense of Islam
there is none
you are a piece of human filth
not giving importance to context
>>237168
Are you aware of the irony?
>>231789
SJW, liberal, /pol/, reddit, tumblr, stormfag...
When I see any of these words I brace myself for a shit thread.
>>237190
>irony?
there is only irony if you are either completely clueless about Islamic ideology & history or you support that evil criminal b.s.
>>237342
Sounds like you described yourself.
>>237367
thanks for again proving you're just trolling shite and have nothing to contribute to this thread
seriously GFY
>>237500
You do realise your posts are ticking every red flag in this thread?
Related I guess:
>if you don't immediately preface your argument by saying you're anti-X you're automatically pro-X
I've yet to find someone I could discuss or even broach controversial or taboo subjects with because I will invariably be accused of being X. Maybe I just give off a weird vibe.
>>237728
>le ebin edgy free thinker
>>237728
If your "arguments" involve insulting the other party, I generally invalidate you. All points should target the facts on the table, not the person presenting them.
>>230347
This. I will often ask my opponent "what will it take to change your mind?" If they can't answer the question, they're arguing in bad faith.
More often than not, it reveals the hypocrisy of their intellectual standards. For example:
1.) They provide me with their reasons for believing in ABC.
2.) I ask them what it will take to change their minds. They say "a peer-reviewed study containing XYZ" or something to that effect.
3.) I provide said study, or several. They say "yeah but is that really the consensus though?", that it isn't enough, and that the consensus of a greater portion of the scientific community is required.
4.) I ask them how they can justify holding their opponent to a higher standard of proof than themselves.
5.) Rage, blocking, cognitive dissonance &c.
When someone gives very shoddy evidence to support their claim and all their other points are "I provided evidence!"
>>236893
>why are you opposed to their mass eradication
Who's saying I'm opposed or anything? I'm just angry that it didn't actually happen and I'd like to rectify that.
>>237799
What about when you insult someone while refuting their argument alongside it?
>>230399
embarrassing
>>237971
That's what known in the intellectual community as "top bantz," and I fully endorse it.
>>230978
read some max weber you shitcunt
>>237728
This is just pathetic.
>>237728
>libbies
that's a new one
also get the fuck out
>Speaking as a...
DIVE DIVE DIVE
>>237129
More like they know they are wrong but don't wanna lose the argument
>>237928
touche, bitch nigger.
>katana can cut through steel
>katana was the best sword
Miyamoto Musashi would have a field day with this bullshit but hey anime knows better than actual swordsman right?
>bringing up berserkers in discussion about vikings
>comparing vikings to actual soldiers
>measuring warriors in ''badassery'' aka cool factor instead of achievements
>muh heritage
instadrop
also one weird meme
>roman legionaires weren't good in 1v1 combat
first of all soldiers are supposed to fucking work as a unit not engage in some ritual duels second working as a unit doesn't mean the guy will drop his weapon if he is alone
>>238583
Only if you're a fucking autist who looks at someone being convinced but still disagreeing as stealing your valuable internet victory from you by behaving like a normal human being.
coming up with the usual popular history stereotypes
you know you can can only educate them by showing them solid sources and thats not always at hand so i usually just
>read a book
"I don't lift, [...]"
>>238632
Sometimes that won't work, and it's annoying as hell. I've lost track of how many times I've cited to material demonstrating good performance of Sherman tanks vis a vis Panther tanks in the mobile battles in France, 1944, only to have it dismissed as "propaganda", or just plain wrong.
Because everyone knows Belton Cooper is the last word on the damn things. [/sarcasm]
>>238668
>>238632
You can't just tell people to read a book or link something.
If you have evidence, post it directly yourself.
It's annoying as fuck when someone says
>I am right read this 500 page book to see why i am right if you disagree ill tell you go read the book again over and over because it proves i am right if you just read it
>>230141
The way they approach it. You should always approach a debate as a way to empathize and to understand. Lots of people take it as a way to beat their chest and are totally masturbatory.
Buzzwords and copypasta/infographics. This is not super well defined but its a catch all for phrases I don't like. When people use these they often just don't know how to structure a point. Case in point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhQVm3igswk when you use buzzwords you sound like this kid. Obviously not understanding what he is saying and just repeating things he's heard. Not putting the kid on blast. He's acting his age. If you use buzzwords or don't attribute your references then you aren't.
Boogeymen and the lack of boogeymen. "Evil doesn't exist" and "<insert thing> is EVUL" are both usually wrong. I am not gonna get into the concept of evil. But if you aren't in an academic context its ok to say things are evil. But if you approach a side from it being explicitly evil, then you are approaching it in an unemphathetic manner.
People who speak about things they don't know without being willing to change their viewpoint. Happens on economics a lot.
>>237728
>so seriously either learn about the ideology & history of islam & mohamhead or just STFU because you are just trolling shite
Remember when everyone was saying that Assad was gassing his own people?
Remember when everyone was justifying every rebel atrocity with a "they were Alawites" or "they were pro regime"?
Remember when ISIS blew up a Russian airliner and everyone was snickering and calling it justified blowback?
I remember.
When people think women should do a man's job. I can eat 2 large pizza's easily, but that doesn't mean I should.
I'm seeing this sort of shit a lot on Facebook recently;
>ISIS are not Muslims! #terrorismhasnoreligion
>Proceed to go full fedora the moment a Christian does something remotely controversial like not support same sex marriage
I have no idea why these people are biased towards Islam considering they're also the kinds of people that post shit from atheist organisations and Neil DeGrass Tyson quotes.
I make a note to avoid debating any related topic with them irl.
>>239259
I have a friend who will refuse to generalize when it comes to Muslims etc. but will spontaneously go off on how Christians are so backwards and stupid (it's 2015!). He's pro freedom and democracy as long as it fits him. Don't get me wrong we're good friends I just refuse to discuss politics with him.
>>230212
Anybody that uses pol ad hominems to denounce ideas they don't like
>debating on 4chan and not expecting attracting trolls like flies to shit
Senpai pls
>friend just posted some shit on Facebook about poppies for remembrance day "ignoring the true victims of war, woman and children, in favor of the killers"
I might stop associating with him over this, actually. That's a pretty heinous thing to believe.
>>239396
Are you referring to Timothy McVeigh, the self-professed agnostic? Or Terry Nichols, who converted after his arrest?
Regardless, I wasn't intending to sound like a /pol/tard. I just wanted to bring up the hypocrisy of atheist normies shitting all over one religion while white knighting for a similar religion the moment a few extremists shoot a bunch of people.
That sort of inexplicable bias doesn't make for a good debate.
Folks who mock emotion where it doesn't get in the way of descriptive facts, for determining normative positions. Hume and Smith describe why everything rests upon our passions, and I doubt such folks would claim to be Kantians or the like.
>>239496
10/10 i mad
>>236754
This is something I've especially noticed in crazy conspiracy theorists, so it's always alarming when more ordinary people fall down that hole. The idea that any evidence that is not in line with your world-view is obviously fabricated is the domain of intellectual children.
I tend to avoid debates that go on for such a long time (Like a day) that it can be seen that it is pretty useless to convince this person.
>disregards your point simply because you have also insulted him
I tend to use copious amounts of insults in my arguments, but they aren't my points themselves.
>[my point], you faggot
Is different than
>you're a faggot
So yes, red flags for me would be people who ignore everything else because they saw something they didn't like.
Where do you guys debate, besides the chan?
>>230141
Anyone who uses the word 'fucktard'.
>>230182
>debate dumbass
>dumbass gives his first point
>you refute it
>dumbass appeals to emotion
>you call him out
>dumbass says "your stupid"
>call him out ofr ad hom
>dumbass says "your delusional and controlled by X like many others you have been brainwashed by X
>eventually give up because no matter how much you try to refute the illuminati you really can't
>dumbass wins
>>242135
Nowhere. Where could I? Youtube comments? Reddit that goes on downvoting spree if they hear inconvinient truth?
>>242135
I have a friend who is raised on internet information: ie infographs he sees on forums, John Green and Test Tube videos. Talking to him about Israel is like talking to IDF Facebook admins.
And I'm not even pro "kill all the kikes' or anything
>>242135
I do it mainly on a Civilization video game forum.
I haven't even played Civ in like a decade.
>>242145
Kill yourself fucktard
When they don't agree with me.
Life's too short to have conversations outside a comfy echo chamber.
Debating is useless, especially on the internet, since it requires both parties to share their dialectic, or it will inevitably end up in debating each other dialectics, and that's way beyond the ability of the common man
>>230141
>watches the trews and think Russel brand is seriously intelligent
>claims to be "spiritual"
>Islam is a religion of peace
>Progressive types
>use the term "fascism" without knowing what it is
>>239496
I hate the ever-creeping jingoism as much as anyone else but to blame the soldiers, especially in WWI, shows that they're nothing more than a contrarian edgelord.
>>242228
If you've only been exposed to television pundits, Russell Brand looks like Noam Chomsky.
>>230182
Straight outta /pol/
>>230141
Quoting Orwell or that Ben Franklin "Those who desire security at the cost of liberty" line.
Orwell because most of the people quoting him avrnt actually read 1984, don't realize he's a socialist, and don't realize his works are allegorical and not meant to be taken as prophecy. (Huxley more accurately predicted 21st century America anyway).
The Ben Franklin quote annoys me because it actually refers to financial security (taxation and benefits thereof) as it relates to citizens living on the frontier. It's essentially meant to say "You want to live in the woods to avoid taxes, fine, but good luck if the Indians get pissed off at you because no one is getting there in time."
I usually dislike quotes anyway outside of academic writing. Your points should stand for themselves, you shouldn't have to quote someone to give them value.
>>242151
Well, you didn't exactly explain why debating on youtube comments is bad
>>242148
I can affirm this, because I do it all the time.
If you can't win, make them mad.
I love it.
>>242228
>Islam is a religion of peace
People who say that people say Islam is the religion of peace.
I don't think anyone actually says that since that one guy after 9/11 which made it such a meme phrase
>>242297
every leftard and SJW says it's a religion of peace not to mention muslims themselves
>>242381
Never seen that. I think you're exaggerating, people say it doesn't have to support terrorism.
>>242281
People there are completly immune to reason and sooner or later will start throwing memes and insults when they run out of revisionist bullshit and misconceptions. That and the place is full of kids and weebs so good luck with any discussion.
Specific to 4chan: the instant someone replies to you with greentext and a meme image you might as well just assume any debate you were having is over and stop replying. Bonus points if they repeat whatever your argument was, but phrase it in such a way to make it look weaker or less rational.
>>242385
>Never seen that
Nice Taqqiya mehmet
>>230182
>What is sophistry
>>230141
People who deny biology by saying things such as "race and gender are social constructs"
>>243005
>Implying they're not
>>230141
If they don't understand the side they are supposed to be defending/attacking. Worst offenders are politic debates, which is why I try to avoid them.
>>230141
>What are red flags that instantly turn you off from debating with a person?
Unwarranted aggression and petty ad hominim insults. Both of which are all too common on 4chan.
I get that 4chan isn't a "hugbox" and that this is something that's embedded in imageboard culture but some people just seem incapable of not being (or pretending to be) arrogant assholes when making sweeping claims that X is evil and how their opinion Y is totally correct and that if you remotely disagree then you are definitely an X supporter in some way.
On hand you feel obligated to respond to such wild claims but on the other hand you kind of know from the get-go that he's just going to take you for a ride and your long argument is going to anti-climactically end with him calling you a degenerate/nazi/communist/jew/muslim/christfag/athetist/nigger/kek/leftist/rightist/polack/redditor etc etc etc
I can understand that riling up random assholes on the internet is entertaining but I just don't understand people who stroll into perfectly civil threads and start memeposting to try and start shit for no better reaosn than to ruin someone's day.
>>230184
I take pride in being Mac
>>243086
If you have a different opinion you are reddit and if you say for example a movie is overrated u hate it.2 things that make me want to leave this site.Ofc im not saying everybody is like that but like 75 percent are
Dismissing your position because of other arguments made by people who have the same goals as I do.
>you can't criticize the president of Brazil for being in the center of a huge scandal because some men hate her for being a woman
Justifying death because of revenge
You shouldn't complain about what was in the news today because there were a lot of other things that happened
Biggest red flag: a religious person. There's no intelligence there, just a copy of a doctrine and its asinine, fixed attempts at arguments. I'd sooner debate a spider monkey that's addicted to masturbation.
A big red flag for me is when they are insecure and threaten to leave the conversation because "muh time is precious, i'm not gonna waste it on you" or some other related self fellating excuse to run away like a little bitch.
>>243764
Ummm... I left my oven on and umm... you'remom.
>>230141
Goal-posting moving and false equivalence "whataboutery" are the absolute worst.
>>243722
This could be bait, but I kind of agree.
>>230141
>What are red flags that instantly turn you off from debating with a person?
Refusal to address the points of a comment and continued strings of ad homs.
When someone's economic beliefs seem to be built around whether or not a person "deserves" a certain amount of wealth, and the actual growth or stability of the economy is clearly something of an afterthought.
>>243257
I seriously hope you're an American academic.
>>243764
>to run away like a little bitch
Yes, because staying on the internet and arguing anonymously with another mystery person is the epitome of manliness.
There's literally nothing wrong with leaving an internet "debate" at any time and for any reason and having the last word in no way makes you better, smarter or more of a man.
>>243200
>2 things that make me want to leave this site.
You don't have the balls.
Catholic shitposting in every and any non-catholic thread
>Muh Christian art
>Muh unbiased Christian writings
>Muh perceived moral superiority
>Muh fedorah tip
>Muh seething hate for anything non-Catholic
>Muh degeneracy
>Muh northern snowniggers/middle-eastern sandniggers/eastern chinks subhumans
>Muh Muh
>>243891
There's a difference between
>Fine, you win. I'm out.
And
>Psh, my time is precious. Get a life kiddo
Also fuck off.
>>230141
When they blabber ad hominems or seem likely to raid me for making good points.
Any of the following
>Entrenched anti-realist beliefs
>unironic fascist/nazi tendencies
>unironic neoreactionary tendencies
>"modern art is le bad le realism is only good"
>christposting
>calling things "memes" (i.e. "meme philosophy, meme philosopher, meme book, etc."
>Replies consisting only of greentext and a funny anime picture
>Quoting people out of context
>attacking an idea by attacking the person who helped originate the idea
>When they don't bother to spend even 30 minutes reading up on a subject before trying to argue about it
And of course
>uncomprimising third worldism
>Le ussr was communism meme
>People who use "leftist" as a catch-all term for any position they don't like that's vaguely non-conservative
>>243950
No both make you a massive fucking faggot. Here is what you say.
>I have to go, we will have to continue this conversation later. find some sources that aren't shit.
>>244093
>uncomprimising third worldism
A land mine for all university seminars
>>244122
The worst are the maoists who realized that there's no real agricultural peasantry in your country and somehow decide that the students are the next best thing.
Making crappy analogies that have nothing to do with the original argument.
Never argue with a fool. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
>>244205
Oh, wow I laughed. Who said that?
>>230182
excellent b8
People that assert conspiracy theories and then get mad if you dont agree with them. Ill listen but dont act like a child if I dont buy it.
>>244173
You actually have Maoists on your campus? Holy fuck dude.
>>231765
Racism has been the staple of the most longlasting empires faggotkek.
>>244231
Your mom.
>>244317
They're fucking horrible, thank god they're mostly relegated to the fringes. The main commie group is a branch of the IMT, and they're much saner than most other organizations on campus and locally.
>>239497
I shit all over every religion without discrimination.
That doesn't mean I'm gonna shit on the people who practice them, hate the sin not the sinner etc...
What do I win?
>>244093
>>calling things "memes" (i.e. "meme philosophy, meme philosopher, meme book, etc."
>>Le ussr was communism meme
>''SEE IT'S SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, DO YOU WANNA ARGUE AGAINST SCIENTIFIC FACTS?''
>proceeds to link a theory coming from a soft science, not even the actual research just some shitty news article talking about it
Just fuck my shit up
>Humanist
An old man on a cloud bestowing mankind with a soul, a shard of his perfect love and perfect morality: Ridiculous
A cosmic force of good, a shard of which exists within all humans and just happens to coincide with 21st century western morality: Makes perfect sense
The appeal to nature. I've heard it used for every position under the sun, from why slavery is moral and just to why it's evil and unjust. I've heard it for anarchism, fascism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, hedonism, monogamy, polyamory, fucking everything, and they almost never have anything to back it up with. When they do, there's just as much evidence contradicting them.
I also immediately disregard anyone that says shit like, "The world is determined soley by X." Heard people say it's run by race, economics, social structures, etc. It's always myopic, and is always based on cherry picked evidence.
>>244950
I guess literally everything that any human says, thinks or does is human nature, so human nature doesn't really mean a whole lot.
It's human nature to like killing people, because a lot of humans like killing people.
It's also human nature to not like killing people, because a lot of humans don't like killing people.
if it's a scandinavian then you can be absolutely sure he is immune to reason and lives in the past
I can't stand it how nearly all religious discussions are assholes who want to tell you what the other guy feels and why he/she believes or doesn't believe. just stick to explaining yourself because the second you go beyond I know you're retarded. science isn't going to explain everything. there are lots of contradictions in all of the major religions. back the fuck off.
>>244995
Never thought about this perspective actually
>>244995
>I guess literally everything that any human says, thinks or does is human nature
eh I think this is a stretch.
noun:
the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans.
>>230141
If they have engage in that shit where they strawman you by going "HURR DURR [cartoonish version of what you just said"
goalpost moving
If they engage in needless nationalism shitposting, like going STUPID FUCKING BRITBONG/AMERIFAT ect.
And my favorite, when you have an entire back and fourth with them, where they post a bunch of stuff without a source, but angrily demand you provide a source for a claim you make
>>230141
It's socialist
It's a SJW
It's a SJW and Socialist teacher (tho I love to exploit their ignorance and trigger them)
It's a jew
>>245958
go back to /pol/
>muh
>Write a long post detailing my viewpoint
>Wait for well-written response
>lol c u c k gb2reddit
Every time, why do I still come here.
>>246442
where was your post senpai
>>246520
oh never mind i misunderstood
>>244093
>unironic fascist/nazi tendencies
>unironic neoreactionary tendencies
How can you tell if they're ironic? And if you refuse to debate them, how can you be sure they aren't right?
>Replies consisting only of greentext and a funny anime picture
Greentext is a legitimate form of discourse, when used a certain way. It can be very efficient at conveying meaning.
>Quoting people out of context
This can often be a legitimate error.
>>230141
>Unironically uses the word "nigger" to describe black people.
>Makes edgy "the holocaust never happened" jokes.
>Worships Hitler and the Nazis.
>Ponders about a better world without specific ethnicities.
>>247586
You sound important
>>247609
How so, Mr. I Don't End Sentences With Periods?
I wont debate anyone about the truth of evolution if I here them say something along the lines of "no amount of proof/evidence would ever make me change my mind".
The moment someone says anything along those lines they simply need to excuse themselves for any debate.
>>247983
sure seems like you won't change your mind about THAT though huh
:^)
>>239339
People who actually believe that "shilling" exists. Like the JDF would actually waste money paying people to post on this much influencial and culturally significant meme board.
Environmentalist, leftist, feminist.
>>248040
What's wrong with enviromentalism?
What's it called when someone posts some kind of baseless claim they pulled right out of their ass, then when you call them retarded they act like they were trying to have a serious debate on the matter and that because you haven't presented evidence refuting their claim, they've won the debate?
I'm sure that's a fallacy of some kind.
>>248695
burden of proof.
>argument to morality
>>230182
You're exactly the kind of person people refuse to debate because you act like a retard, but you try to rationalize it as you being so smart that everyone is afraid of your mad debate skills.
>>230141
Using the word c-u-c-k to mean anything other than its actual correct meaning. Thank god that shit was filtered.
>>230745
FUCKING THIS
>>230214
>>237967
Looks like you guys won't be having many political discussions. That is, assuming you live in the US.
The words "liberal" and "conservative" have been corrupted and hijacked by modern agenda. Still, that is often the extent of someone's ability to build an identity.
I was gonna write more, but now I'm mad because it's true.
I don't debate with physics students.
They seem to genuinely believe that they have the answer to every question ever and actually won't letter other speak without saying sometime about how "physics" has the answer.
Beside, I prefer the theatrical rhetoric and performing in debates.
Feels good to quote Cicero with passion.
>>249543
They're also humourless.
>e.g. Can't make X jokes unless you're an X
>Promptly turn around make similar joke because "One of their friends is X, so it's okay..."
>>230921
Sometimes it's this, but in my experience teaching American college students, using "we" to mean "America at any point in history" is just an unthinking reflex. "We" went to war with Mexico, "we" bombed Hiroshima, "we" built the transcontinental railroad, and so on.
I would always try to get people to analyze historical events without involving themselves in it - if you weren't one of the decision-makers, it's not "we." But it's such a deeply ingrained way of speaking that it was very difficult to get them to abandon it.
I don't know if this is just an American thing or what.
>>230184
Anyone who complains about political correctness.
>>230141
Australian flags
>>242984
When people say the word Taqiyya
