Lefty girl beating me during debates

>I agree that the outcome (France) is good though
Fren what makes you think that?

Attached: attraction.jpg (1200x630, 97K)

Ignore what she says. i fucked a straight up communist for 3 years. once shes into you, all her politics go out the window, its YOU she starts caring about, and then, u change her mind.

Attached: download.png (128x128, 110)

I've tried again and again but I fear she might be smarter than me (she is an engineer but still).
Another example:
I think cities ruin our spirit and turn us into NPC tier automatons that are too detached from the real world. I think we should always have a link to mother nature lest we forget our roots and even our humanity. Kind of the Ted kaczynski and Julius Evola argument (not to their extremes though). Technology can be good but it also has a dehumanizing aspect, we bond less now and it's technology that drives the rate of social progress. (think tinder making degeneracy and delivering chads to thots while incels get nothing.)

She comes back at me with:
Civilisation means city and our goal as humans is to overcome nature and be transhumanists and conquer the stars. If humans had thought like I did all throughout history we'd still be living in huts and wouldn't even have invented agriculture the most basic "tech". She says humans made that turn a long time ago and it's ireversible, facts prove it just look around the world nowadays.

What can I answer to this?

Post her feet

Jesus dude you need to learn how to think. For example, here:
>all our countries are creations similar to the eu, in France we had normands, bretons, corsicans, occitans... they were all conquered and unified into what is called France today. France had to kill the culture and languages of all these places and make French mandatory in school etc. But the outcome is good.
Some things that immediately come to mind when I read this:
>Why is the outcome good? (Weak counter)
>And yet how similar were all these peoples? In various other nations integration has failed horribly. One would think that it makes a serious difference how distinct the integrated cultures are. Many of these peoples were already similar. How could you suggest that the same is sustainable on a grander and grander scale especially in the tumultuous times of today? (Strong counter)
>Even if you are correct in some respect you are not understanding the severe differences between an insitution like the European Union and a nation like France. The EU can never become a "nation", it is not possible. France is a different case in that is the natural evolution of close living peoples into a greater nation over time. This is indeed how all nations and peoples begin in the first place. However, a forced process from a governmental institution that is completely disconnected from the various peoples it claims to represent is not at all the same case and there is no assurance that the outcome will be positive, or that even if it is positive, that it is worth the trade of maintaining the culture of the independent peoples. Would you want blacks to be forced to culturally integrate into America and drop their culture entirely? Because that is equivalent to what you are suggesting. (Strong counter)
This shit isn't tough man you just need to think of debate like its a game of chess. Constantly seek ways to put your opponent in check. When you hear someone's argument automatically be poking at weaknesses.

the whole french unification thing is dogshit, as if we are going to abolish all other culture and make 1 language mandatory and the only language to be spoken. Basically you just make yourself look like a brainlet.

Attached: 1541625184973s.jpg (125x120, 3K)

baguettes always surrender

Attached: 300px-Swiss_army_Knife.jpg (300x431, 33K)

yeah turns out "arguments" are just popularity contests, and if you have tits, people are more inclined to listen to you.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a forced mixture of different groups. So is Nigeria. So is Somalia.
How are they doing?

quite simply the differences between the normands, bretons, corsicans, occitans, et al are vastly less severe than the ones between frenchman and niggers.

its not hard

>normands, bretons, corsicans, occitans
>the same as a modern nation
>the outcome is good
compared to what?
do you know how the world would be if there was a free occitania, bretonia(?)

or route 2.
>yeah the outcome was good because there was a strong culture that was extremely similar to all the others you mentioned (and the people were of same racial stock and faith) and it all happened over the course of more than a thousand years organically not shoved upon us in a few decades and what would this new culture center around? what is it that unites all europeans(mind you remember that in your liberal europe there arent only europeans anymore)? christianity-nope you destroyed it, the economy? yeah if you want a "culture" that is based around everyone being a consumer that isnt something that really ties a nation together especially not when there are strong incoming cultures(eg. islam) that wont(and should not) just lose their identity and replace it with the clothes they wear and the brand of their mobile phone.

also op you are a fucking brainlet

>women using sophistry.
>can't refute it

Attached: 972458ea3bb8c57a45dda49a5300b99566a77ef0.jpg (436x472, 38K)

You know there are multiple studies showing that humans are happier and less stressed when you put them into a natural environment right? I don't even see why this argument is a disagreement. You can have reservations about the rapid uptake of technology without agreeing it is always bad.

>arguing with women over anything

Women are simply for baby making, not intellectual disucison. Let that be a reminder to you to stop wasting time. They are lower intellect and never think logically but emotionally. She is a virtue signaling and each time you waste your cucking yourself. If your not fucking stop waste time, because she's clearly not interested in you. You seem like a total cuck

Shameful display

Sharpen your mental blade on her, read books about the topics to defeat her shitty arguments and perhaps use some of your own.
I wouldn't engage, these people are a waste of time.
She supports a collective that recognizes corporations as people.
You seem willing to betray what you hold dear because she's a pretty girl. France gets what it deserves.

Ask her if she likes the weekly riots and trash building up in the streets, the armed soldiers marching through the streets, and the overall degradation of her people.

Don't let a stupid intellectual prostitute raise your children.

>Wat do Jow Forums.

Explain that there is a difference between a union of European countries in which they work together while keeping each their unique identity and a Union of soviet euro states where all identity is eradicated and everyone is poured into the same NPC mold.

Attached: 1539313583641.jpg (754x617, 129K)

This, fuck this hen for a while, then if she really chooses you as hes man, then she will assimilate your ideals like a sponge.

>France had to kill the culture and languages
and the people

if you actually mean we should abandon tech and cities she is (kind of) right but you are both wrong in that she ignores the problem and you rather than solving the problem chose a way that is like suicide-you cant have those problems if you dont have civilization

the bottom one is wrong
they're definitely keeping the nail file

user it sounds like its time to re-evaluate your philosophy. Im not saying you should become a filthy commie or anything but it defo sounds like you need to subject your beliefs to some serious criticism. That which survives should be adopted and the rest should be discarded.

have her read brave new world or read it yourself

I hope you find my last post useful, I'll try again to analyze this:
>Civilisation means city and our goal as humans is to overcome nature and be transhumanists and conquer the stars. If humans had thought like I did all throughout history we'd still be living in huts and wouldn't even have invented agriculture the most basic "tech". She says humans made that turn a long time ago and it's ireversible, facts prove it just look around the world nowadays.
What immediately comes to mind:
>While part of the human spirit is indeed to overcome nature, it must be done in an intelligent and measured way. Nature cannot be simply done away with. For example, we should not destroy rivers wantonly, rather we should find ways to direct the water for our own purposes while caring for and preserving the river itself. That is the difference between cultivating nature and working with and working against nature. We must understand the consequences of our actions as we ourselves are a part of nature and we don't fully understand ourselves. Advancing too quickly without balancing that advancement with a deeper understanding of who we are as creatures will lead to even greater problems. Think of all the atrocities made possible because of our technological advancement paired with our lack of internal and moral development. Humanity is like a child with a box of matches. It should grow up a little before we give it a flamethrower. (alright counter, some dumb rhetorical tricks but normies respond to those more than content)
>This is a black or white fallacy. There must be some middle ground between no advancement whatsoever and advancement for advancement's sake. As we have seen already in many instances in world history the relentless driving forward of technology for its own sake causes numerous problems for the species. We are actually worse off in many areas because we are not living in a natural way - that is in a way suitable for our bodies.

>If humans had thought like I did all throughout history we'd still be living in huts and wouldn't even have invented agriculture the most basic "tech".
Slippery slope fallacy

>Civilisation means city and our goal as humans is to overcome nature and be transhumanists and conquer the stars

Your girl is based As Fuck.

Baise la, laisse toi emporter par sa narrative gauchiste.
Il faudrait que tu adopte une position Libérale, ou Libertarien.
>Liberté individuelle avant tout.

C'est en défendant la liberté d'expression absolue (comme le négationnisme).

J'ai aussi appris qu'en france, on ne peut pas faire un test de paternité sans l'accord d'un juge, car ca "nuit a l'ordre et la paix publique".

Parle seulement de libertés, des droits de l'homme absolu.

Libéral ca veut pas dire de gauche
Mais ca te donne une base solide contre l'extrémisme, comme le communisme.

Et dernièrement, en France la majorité, même les gauchistes sont Civique Nationalistes (nationalisme du mérite, de l'assimilation des migrants par la méritocratie). Joue là dessus car tu semble nationaliste.

Si tu va dans l'extrême, quel qu'il soit, elle pourra te piéger.
Si tu joue le jeu et devient plus modéré, ca marchera en ta faveur et crédibilité.

Ca a l'air d'être une meuf en or. Je te conseille de la garder.
Surtout si intelligente + belle.
C'est rare.

fpbp

Fuck man, her response is not even an argument, this is just a statement, completely brainwhashed chick.

>France is a different case in that is the natural evolution of close living peoples into a greater nation over time. This is indeed how all nations and peoples begin in the first place.

I mean wars were faught and people were conquered. That's forced mate and more brutally than what the EU is doing right now. I tried your kind of arguments but then she talks about history and how the French state fucked up this independant kingdom on our lands or that one and she makes me depressed.

Those tribes had more in common than not.
Look at the "new" French who came in the 60s or 70s. Did they integrate? Did they have a lot in common with the people around them?
No they didn't, and they were infinitely better than the average jihadi coming in now.

They didn't integrate then, they won't integrate now.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes all levels of the same thing are good.

The phrase "you can have too much of a good thing" applies here.

You would want to make the argument that this kind of individuality vs consolidation requires a balance, and supra-national organizations tip that balance too far towards consolidation, while allowing the individual tribes of a nation would tip too far towards individuality. The goal of any nation is to maximize its effeciency in which it lives out the will of the people. Too big and it gets all beurocratic, too small and theres no organization to work with.

Sometimes burger posts are the best posts

>our goal as humans is to overcome nature and be transhumanists and conquer the starts

Says... who? Once we achieve such lofty goals, then what? Sounds like 'I Fucking Love Science!' nonsense to me. No human being knows what the goal of humanity is, to suggest one does is nothing more than arrogance.

>If humans had thought like I did all throughout history we'd still be living in huts and wouldn't even have invented agriculture the most basic "tech".

Modern western humans are physically and mentally weak. Modern existence has led to mass obesity, depression, anxiety, suicide and the list goes on. We are now consuming more than the planet can produce which will eventually catch up with us. One could very easily argue that civilisation will destroy the human race rather than elevate it to the next level like your gf insists.

She's talking about the EU though. So Italy and France and Spain etc
All substrate of the white race.

THE OUTCOME ISN'T GOOD YOU PIECE OF SHIT POZZED LEFTIST RIDER
hope you get chlamydia you fucking wimp

I agree with what you wrote but the thing is the argument is basically the "speed" at which the unification goes. It's a weak one.
And I can't be against the concept of our nation states of today. I thought that was a lefty position anyway.

I really don't know what to say to you other than what other anons have already said. Not only are her arguments terrible, but she basically defeats herself (like admitting that rich cultures were forcibly destroyed). If you can't take from there, then I think you need to think long and hard about your positions and how to articulate them. Start by doing a lot of reading then practice out arguments in your head. Good luck, Pierre.

So her argument is that we should let our officials act like French feudal lords? And you can't refute this?

>I mean wars were faught and people were conquered.
This is still "natural", when I say "natural evolution" I don't necessarily mean "totally peaceful and good", just that in proceeds in a measured way which ultimately leads itself to stability.
> I tried your kind of arguments but then she talks about history and how the French state fucked up this independant kingdom on our lands or that one and she makes me depressed.
You don't have to justify everything France did homie. I'm confused why you think you have to defend every action it committed just because you happen to be French. I say this all the time as an American to my liberal friends.
>Yeah sure, it sucks that slavery happened. But that doesn't mean that I'm about to pay reparations out of some fabricated guilt for actions I took no part in.
Or when people say stupid shit about giving America back to the natives:
>Obviously genocide is not permissible and horrible things were done to native peoples. That being said it is ridiculous and horribly impractical to even suggest giving the land "back" to them. Can you even characterize some sense of how that process should reliably proceed, or how it even would happen?
I've used both of these IRL. You're cutting yourself off in the knees but putting yourself in this imaginary position where you have to defend every little move France ever made. Cut the dead weight off and bite the bullet ever now and then for a greater argumentative goal. Yeah, it happened, but is it good NOW?

You need to stop getting everything you know from Jow Forums and actually read some books. You've taken all of these positions without understanding them. You are a fraud.

The first mistake is taking a girl seriously discussing politics

>And I can't be against the concept of our nation states of today. I thought that was a lefty position anyway.
found your problem you should not think about what you should think but rather think what you find to be right

also its not a weak argument in this context, you cannot expect a huge swath of people from all over europe+immigrants with strong culture to bond over basically nothing overnight/ever

False equivalency. Ask her if shed be cool with going back to a lineage based monarchy lmao.

>But the outcome is good.

Of course the "outcome is good". History is written by the victors and naturally they say that conquest brings benefits. Conquerors can use that argument to justify all sorts of atrocities, enslavement and suffering—even ethnic cleansing and genocide. Look at past examples in France: the Roman empire crushed the Gallic tribes with brute force. They exterminated whole tribes with sieges and starvation; extracted resources and manpower, enforcing their rule with tortures and enslavement. Institutional cruelties. Very much a might makes right mentality. Does your leftie woman justify a foreign elite exploiting an inferior masses? Which side will she be on during Vichy France?

That's the problem with these smart lefties: they think they are the natural "elites" that will run things, but in reality they are useful idiots to be crushed by stronger, crueler insiders. It always plays out that way.

>appeal to authority
>appeal to emotion
>emotional blackmailing
>insults
>as personam attacks and ad hominem
>strawman galore
this is how women "win" at debates. or you may be a fucking low energy retard OP, in which case you should simply shut the fuck up and stop bothering

>I can't refute this at all, otherwise I'd be for the destruction of my own country and giving independance back to the different regions.

no you wouldn't. why would you ever need to support an unfavorable course of action like that?

Sounds like she's your intellectual superior and can simply bully you into submission. You going online to find arguments will not change this. She will still outmatch you and you will look like a fool/npc not being able to formulate new arguments on the spot.

She's employing the naturalistic fallacy in several of your arguments. Just because technological advancements, conquest and assimilation has occurred throughout history does not mean it is morally correct or even desirable.

Why would you want to be assimilated into another European culture and lose your unique identity? Just because she thinks it's inevitable doesn't mean there's nothing of worth to preserve. Otherwise we might as well stop all wildlife preservation, etc.

Why would you want technological advancements at the cost of quality of life?

OP is a gay man

Tell her that she's literally making a pro-colonialist argument and that these previous states were done so with violence. Does she really want to do that again? that her argument is largely meaningless when it comes to supra-national institutions within modernity.

Her argument seems to be that the subjugation of nation states will lead to good outcomes. Yet, you could look to real life examples of civil unrest caused by this. Moreover, push harder on the element of democracy. Ask her why she trusts these unelected representatives over democracy, push on the view that democracy functions as a mode of error correction.

Tell her that this is meaningless when it comes to the notion of a 'good life'. The value judgement she is making appears to be 'progress' for 'progress' sake and not for living happy and healthy live. Link her to the many studies that connect a relationship to nature with good mental health and that you're not opposed to technology, but rather than a technological system that dehumanises.

Also, don't go on Jow Forums for arguments you faggot. You should read books and think about what you think for yourself. If you really think her arguments are convincing then adopt them. Note: I do not think the arguments given are good at all.

you both draw a line at a fairly arbitrary point. Unless she's willing to have a one-world government dominated by a globalist (ie, US) culture, she wants to preserve culture somewhere. Either she believes French culture is worth preserving, or EU culture, or Arab culture, or whatever. Unless she wants to be American, she wants to preserve something.
Most people want to preserve culture at some point and assimilate at another. Very few want perfect preservation or perfect assimilation. You just happen to want to preserve and assimilate at different levels than she does.
There's not really any good reason for either position considering how little we know, so her position is just as arbitrary as yours is.

>girl beating me during debates

Attached: 1469394621352.jpg (992x744, 302K)

>bretons
how would you have felt as a Breton?
Wouldn't be better if all those cultures were still alive? MORE DIVERSE?

true
Yeah she might have dismissed the speed argument too quickly.
I think I get what you mean. Thanks for the help.
>Says... who? Once we achieve such lofty goals, then what? Sounds like 'I Fucking Love Science!' nonsense to me.
Yeah she's deep into that kind of thought, it's weird to me too.

Pretty much what I came to post, very nice fellow leaf.
Small is beautiful, and smallish (~10million) nations tend to do best. USSR tried to do 200million under fentral planning & was an unholy shitshow. The US and Canada are highly federalized into mostly autonomous states/provinces & thats the secret to our success. Feds keep grabbing power though which makes things worse for everyone but the handful at the top. (who get a bigger tribute-paying populace)

>Does your leftie woman justify a foreign elite exploiting an inferior masses?
She does. She said if we were to be conquered by a superior alien species, it'd only be natural we would be slaves/cattle. I just think that's her bein a woman that's speaking though, they like to be submissive and stuff.

>France
>right

Just stand up and go away you are a shame of french people.

Attached: 15419475836650.png (1280x904, 1.36M)

Your friend probably hates the USA because shes a female European. So just use the US as an example of a federation of states that has gone bad. Use all the arguments she brings up against trump and the US against her argument for EU federalism. How to Jew 101.

There are 3 big fallacies in her argument, and in no specific order

1. Hindsight bias
Looking back, we enjoy a particular vantage point of being in the future. But, in the present, we have no idea of how future events will play out. It's easy to look back at certain events and think "it was so obvious at why that turned out", when in reality we have no idea. Tell her that she is simplifying complex social situations into easy to understand packages. We have to provide reasons to believe our situation will work out given the information we have now. For example, if you look back at a time where you won a roulette game, you may mistakenly believe playing roulette was a good idea when probability states that you simply got lucky. Past successes have to be understood within their context

2. Cherry picking
The french unification worked out...for those particular people. Other unification did not work out so well. See: The Soviet Union. Tell her she is picking unification that happened to work out well.

3. Assuming counter-factual.
We know the french unification worked out well... but did it? The people involved had their culture and language destroyed. It certainly didn't work out well for them, it worked out well for future people. And it may not have even worked out well for them either! If we assume a different counter-factual, maybe a non-unified France might have worked out even better.

How is that a weak argument?

>but the outcome is good
Why can't you argue instead that what happened to the minority groups in France was wrong and that their languages and cultures should have been preserved? Too proud to admit that your country did something bad?

>Various tribes of France uniting under a national banner is the same as being conquered by Germany in the form of the EU so you can be flooded with shitskins

Then you agree that France (and many other countries) as it is should not exist as a country?
If I'm against the european union then that means I'm against the very concept of the nation-state because in many instances, there never was one "people" in a nation state.
That's basically her argument.

THIS
/thread

Also sounds like a hottie, get her ass in bed. Making her scream with her legs wrapped around your back will probably do more for your public disagreements than arguments for the nobility of French culture.

How was it good for the Bretons or the Occitans?

>Civilisation means city and our goal as humans is to overcome nature and be transhumanists and conquer the stars. If humans had thought like I did all throughout history we'd still be living in huts and wouldn't even have invented agriculture the most basic "tech"
except that our moral and societal advancement is nowhere near catching up to our technological, we may have amazing tech like smartphones, the internet, medicine etc. but most waste it on narcissism, porn, vacuous entertainment instead of enlightening themselves with knowledge of how to live a good life with strong morals and principles and live productively.
We've turned away from beauty and virtue towards baseless bullshit which leads to the overly emotional,hedonistic and non-traditional lives most people adhere to in modern society and western society is slowly degrading because of that ex. single mothers, many accepting the illegitimate identities of mentally ill people, the welfare state rewarding people for economic inactivity, accepting mass migration which perverts culture and fucks up society in many ways,drugging of young men and women with SSRIs and amphetamines which has a negligibly negative effect, hyper sexualization-just to name a few

Attached: Singlemom=bad.jpg (900x979, 224K)

So why trade something good for uncertainty? I mean not all these kinds of mash ups were successful.
I think you are just dumb user. Also, ideologies are for rulers and brainlets, your girlfriend is probably either soulless or also dumb.

>Does she really want to do that again?
She's for a european army so I'm assuming yes.

I hate camping in a tent for longer than like 5 days. That shit is disgusting.

On democracy we both agree that the system is stupid, way too easy to influence outcomes (see macron for example, he got elected cause tv and radio talked about him a lot that's basically it).

>this

Tyron this "this" is actual for Idaho not for Europe

Attached: delacroix-blue-x.jpg (800x800, 116K)

>France had to kill the culture and languages of all these places and make French mandatory in school etc. But the outcome is good.

The ones who support the EU (Merkel, Macron and other childless elites) are using the Kalergi Plan to effect fundamental changes. Your French culture will be destroyed in the process.

Macron pointed to “bombshell” population growth across the third world continent, which he added has been “tremendously well described” by French-American journalist and professor Stephen Smith in a recent book.

“[Africans] are mostly turning to Europe because the continent [of Europe] is not an island, because of our location, and because Europe has its destiny bound with Africa,” stated the vehemently pro-EU French figure during a two-hour long interview.

Smith estimates that the number of Africans living in Europe will grow from nine million to between 150 million and 200 million within the next 30 years.

breitbart.com/europe/2018/04/17/macron-europe-migration-destiny-africa/

>But the outcome is good.
Citation needed. It's like those fags who say immigrants will assimilate like the Irish and Italians.... While neglecting the mob violence and politcal shifts that happened for people already so similar.

Attached: 1538324419731.png (756x499, 478K)

>violence and supression is good when it has a nice outcome

Attached: Adolf-Hitler-Albert-Speer-Arno-Breker.jpg (1024x1001, 89K)

She doesnt give a shit about culture. As previously said, she's into transhumanist stuff and wants to become a robot or whatever.
Soon as she starts talking about AI and space and stuff I just space out cause I can't into those convo's.

Cut off this argument about what would happen if technology got more advanced, and make it an argument about sex and degeneracy. Argue about anytjhing that applies to our dropping IQ's which is aided by technology, such as the prevalence of smartphones and text messages, or pornography (the digitization of sex). Hollywood, MTV, Playboy, mainstream porn, all play a role in degradation of society, and she can't argue anything that's rational against that. There are many, many more examples of bad ways technology has influenced our society, but those are the main players.

learn more

I love when cute lefty girls berate me

Attached: maxresdefault[2].jpg (1280x720, 60K)

The same argument applies, except culturally speaking. As other's have said in this thread
>the outcome is good
is a subjective argument. I'm pretty sure the world would lament the loss of, say, japanese culture for example. It sounds like this dumb normie female is parroting pro EU talking talking points (appeal to authority), but would she want to see Japan's culture become identical to French culture? I highly doubt it. You can use this fact to expose that she's not for the quashing of cultures, she's just for anything that shits on her own culture because she clearly hates it.

>there was never one "people" in a nation state
Okay now I know you're _both retarded.

I don't think a belief in a European army really means that, but if she does say "Yeah, I do want violent subjugation of nation states". You could just be like "The consequences of your view being put into practice would be blood on the streets".

Then what's your favoured mode of governance? It may be more meaningful for you to discuss your view vs her supra-national quasi-democratic liberal elitism. Regardless, if she's genuinely a leftist then there are many points of tension she would have with the elite she is defending. Ones that would cut off the ability of such an entity moving in a genuinely left-wing direction. You could also hit with the regulatory capture angle and so on.

She didn't refute shit here.
Just an entirely different view worded in a patronizing manner. What is reversible and what not will be decided by the people with nukes.
>our goals as humans

Attached: 1540066528066.png (645x773, 92K)

Winning debates has nothing to do with being right. However, you are a beta little bitch for getting out maneuvered by a woman.

Based kraut

Attached: 1534281330526.png (798x798, 65K)

Sillly op you go have to said this, " i represent the french that cconquerer this land, i refuse to be a footnote in history, and i Will defend the people of those that want to destroy my country, for theirs ecoonomical gain, againts of the people" something like that remember you are conqueror

>human progress aprearently is advanced when you have massicve social problems
harmony is important for productivity even if you want to slave yourself out for some delusional goal you sill cant act like having disfuncional people will help you achieve that

Stop fucking lolis and date a Gen X woman (born 1965-1980). She read actual world history from hard cover encyclopedias, lived through a lot of that history and will reduce this thot to Dresden ashes.

KEK YOU ARE SUCH A KEK
ofc you are french

You need to have sex with her

>Civilisation means city and our goal as humans is to overcome nature and be transhumanists and conquer the stars.
That's a lot of fucking assumptions lined up.