Arguing outside of Jow Forums is hell

Hes mexican and my friend

>after years of Jow Forums i feel confident enough to argue efficiently
bwhahahahahaha

you must be a special kind of stupid

>can't just say niggers and spics are ruining everything

Why the fuck not? They are. It's easier for criminals to work undetected because our psychology naturally affronts that situation as being unsafe. So we're all living in this reality of perpetual terror that we might slip up and be honest.

Open borders for Israel
Send niggers to be a buffer nation between the US and Mexico
Stop letting women vote
You get one life, you have one chance to make a difference and save an idea that has been desecrated by (((intellectuals))) who have fooled the public into valuing bullshit over honesty.

>meme flag

I found it less effective to redpill the normies in one blast. I started undermining one or two stances every once in a while and I'm asking questions more than I make statements. It's much more easy do defend that way, and nobody will swallow a big opposite opinion in one chunk ever anyway.

right back at you norgay

There are plenty of people on Jow Forums who disagree. This idea that Jow Forums only thinks one way is just wrong. It's often the case that certain truths stand strong here, but that doesn't stop decent.

congrats you're a moron

Literal nigger can't counter ad hominem arguments
You think that's our fault that you're braindead?
Racist means NOTHING, pull up the facts about racism being a word created by a jewish communist to silence dissent. Fucking RETARD.

>doesn't have the intelligence to form his subjective objectivity
>can't create solid arguments from what he learns here, backed by data
How does it feel? Bad? :(

I fucking hate arguing using stats because you can make stats prove whatever you want with enough manipulation. I prefer arguing using pure logic and reasoning because I can rape a leftist in an argument with logic and reasoning. When you start arguing with stats in an argument, it just becomes a competition to see who can find stats that fit their argument fastest. The argument never goes anywhere once you start doing that. Two other major issues with stats are that correlation does not equal causation and all social scientist are leftist or even outright Marxist-Leninists (i.e. people who don't give a shit about what's actually true and just do everything to push their leftist religion)

>no arguments, just insults
Typical

>mfw spam redpills about the federal reserve and the petrodollar constantly
>drop them either subtly or overtly when I feel like it
>most coworkers agree and get riled up about it
>some ask for more info
>some tell me to stfu (fair enough)
>move towards harder redpills on gun control, immigration, our state, the two party system and crime when they get used to it
>mfw I’m known as that quirky dude who hates the Fed
>mfw coworkers say “fuck the Fed!” As a goodbye after work

The seed has been planted, I’ve always been a social guy who can get his point across and still have fun with it

Attached: 316C3AC2-BC21-40E0-82E9-5A7B6BE30BCC.jpg (427x492, 46K)

Define "objective argument" for me, burger-brain.

It wasnt as much a stat issue besides the statistic that first generation immigrants commit less crime than native born citizens in america. The crux of his argument was that naturalization is a much more devoted process than just being born from citizens and citizens having inherently more rights than non citizen immigrants anyways diminishes the need for natural born citizens to have different rights than naturalized citizens or naturalized refugees. It was an hour long conversation so i dont remember all of it.

Yea I have found that talking about how evil the the federal reserve and the world banking cartel are is one of the easier things to do to red pill centerists and/or leftists

That stat is only true because niggers and spics are included in it.

The reddest of pills right here.
Take note, underage b& faggets.

Attached: 1547651817862.jpg (1920x1080, 571K)

The FED is easy to talk about. I don't think anyone gets their NPC programming all scrambled up over it. Jews arent even that hard to get into. Just start with Israel and its power over the US government.

There's also the problem of trusting whoever collected the statistics in the first place, and how they collected it.

That's on you faggot. You'll never win an argument if you're afraid to offend.

>cant just say niggers or spics are ruining america and immigrants have no loyalty to a new country or else he would just call me racist.

Thats where you went wrong dude.

I cant say that to a mexican friend

how are you a faggot nativist and know nothing about nativism?

Hes an alienist. Why are you so desperate to change this country ? I like it how it is ?

>It wasnt as much a stat issue besides the statistic that first generation immigrants commit less crime than native born citizens in america.

I've heard the reason for this was because they were afraid of being deported, but if that was true their crime rate would just rise to normal rates if they were ever naturalized. There's no benefit from naturalizing them from this standpoint.

That and there's nothing wrong with natives having more rights. This country was built by those before you, and they did it for the benefits for their children and grandchildren and not for foreigners.

Curious. How much scholarization do you have? What's you're background in philosophy / mathematics? Logic?

You just have to get them thinking my dudes, just having one start to look up info on their own is a win for me. And I do bring up Israel, luckily for me I’m a tradesmen and most tradesmen/construction workers have a healthy skepticism for the FED, the system and even Israel sometimes (the biggest bone to pick I’ve noticed is the disproportionate amount of money sent to the heebs that would be better spent at home)

>I’m retarded so Jow Forums is retarded

Attached: 41873F14-F520-4916-A51B-B2E232954506.png (550x543, 25K)

>That and there's nothing wrong with natives having more rights.

Just for kicks: how can we justify that people who, by pure happen stance and luck, can have more rights or at least a greater access to wealth and opportunities than people who, also because of happen stance and luck, were born elsewhere?

Practice.

so it's Jow Forums's collective fault and not even remotely yours, right?

Second year college for information and communication technology

Its not our obligation or even prerogative to host the world and give them rights especially not when you leave it to luck. The country only has an obligation to the people who inhabit and create for the country.

read pic related, also 48 laws of power

Attached: how to not be a sperglord.jpg (322x499, 30K)

All you have to do is bring up the fact that the wars we are fighting obviously aren't for oil since we are a net exporter. Then let them know that every single one of the "axis of evil" countries have talked about telling the international banking cartel to fuck off and creating a gold backed currency.

Yea, I know the feeling. I can't ever bring up race at all due to me being at college, but it's always the fucking massive elephant in the room on nearly every single leftist argument. It's really annoying knowing exactly what the problem is but not being allowed to bring it up because you'd get kicked out of college.

Fpbp. Stop sperging irl OP.

Spicy, being a semperfinigger helps with my argument with most normies on matters about the Middle East, it puts a face on those who get sent to fight and die for Israel (assuming there isn’t a person in their family in the military)

So not necessarily a whole lot of experience in the area of proof making or philosophical thinking I gather. I find that the best way to sharpen the minds when it comes to making good argument comes from reading the analytic philosophers, in that they're the one who most strenuously strive for rigor. But their arguments is still verbal enough that you can see how it would translate to other areas of thought that aren't just mathematics.

Mathematics is just the gold standard when it comes to proof. Now, if you argue with a friend, you have to have a thesis and you need to have some kind of demonstration as to why that thesis is true.

For instance, you could say that diversity makes inter group conflict possible. This has to be so since, by definition, diversity implies the bringing together of different group in close proximity, and if these groups weren't together in close proximity (or under one political system) they could form coalition to fight within the society.

Now, as far as I can see, you can't argue against this conclusion, because the demonstration just flows from the definition given. (Definition of diversity, definition of inter group conflict.) But in order to think like this you have to be familiar with the whole Definition - Axiom - Proposition - Proof workflow.

Best to study this on subject matters that aren't too politicized.

spics hate niggers and afaik other spics as well you'll be fine

Life is unfair. If someone was born ugly, that doesn't mean that pretty girls need to have sex with them. They just need to work harder to get what everyone else gets normally. The same argument can be made for money or intelligence.

It’s difficult to communicate because they have a different “culture” and understanding of the big picture

>Its not our obligation or even prerogative to host the world and give them rights especially not when you leave it to luck.

That's better than what I expected, which was something about how white people are awesome and need to preserve their race or whatever.

The classic counters to this would be:

1. The west is so rich that it does have an obligation to help the world.

2. The west is responsible for the misery in the world, and thus it must takes responsibility for it and give something back.

How would you respond?

>nativist
So you think the red skinned savages should own this land?

That's why you should refrain from defaulting to, "Call him a faggot." It's a crutch.

You can use epithets in your arguments. Just be sure epithets aren't the argument.

>If someone was born ugly, that doesn't mean that pretty girls need to have sex with them.
There's an entire subreddit that would disagree with you.

>Life is unfair.

Do we let babies born with congenital disease die just because of life's unfairness? Do we tell white americans fucked over by globalization to get bent just because life is unfair? Whose unfairness are we gonna allow and which are we gonna try to alleviate, given that we can make that choice?

The problem with what you've just said is that it's an argument in favor of letting everything that happens because of "unfairness" happens simply because that's how life is.

"For all x, if x is unfair, then x is justified because x is part of life and life is unfair."

x = getting fucked by globalization
x = getting raped
x = being born ugly

Whatever else.

>university student
>sit in a lecture on "international business and employee relations"
>lecturer shows us two videos, apparently on differences between German and US handling of the crisis
>both videos support German approach and thrash US
>we're supposed to "work in groups" and "answer the questions about videos while finding what approach is better"
>the group mates "come up" exactly with what the videos said and "evaluate" German approach as being better
>critical thinking 101
>didn't say a word during that lecture

Some of y’all In this thread were never invited to parties and it really shows

Just tell them the time for talking is long gone. Arguing with bureaucratic serfs is nearly impossible, no matter how many facts you present, they will always dig up a snopes article or some kike study, regardless of its credibility, to avoid confronting your evidence. The time to sharpen your blades and brace for strife has come.

>niggers or spics are ruining america and immigrants have no loyalty to a new country

also not an argument, need evidence to support that

The outside is unironically more redpilled that Jow Forums. This is why i don't follow the social rules of here because i know they will be useless for the real world. Jow Forums is essentially a mind prison where you argue with people with similar opinions over minor details thinking you're some special kind™ of enlightened while you slowly disconnect yourself from the outside world (aka the place when you can actually do something) making you entirely powerless.

Needs a definition as to what "ruins the country" is supposed to mean here.

Just that there's Mexican there? Black people? Then it's just redefining "ruin" to mean "many non white people".

Fair enough. We should limit how unfair life can be, within reasonable limits. The problem is that we mostly can't fix the problems in other countries and we can't invite an entire continent of people into ours. Simply giving people aid doesn't work if their mindset(like socialism) is the reason why they're poor.

>"fuck the Fed!"
They might be insulting you. A lot of these people think the government can solve everything.

Stop being afraid of being called a racist. Look at the sticky and start there.

I see what you're trying to say, and I agree to an extent. This board has a wide variety of ideas if you know where to look, but that's exactly the problem. You have to be actively looking for people with opinions outside of the cookie-cutter right-wing Christian worldview in order to find them on this board. I think it's safe to assume OP falls into that category, since he also referred to Jow Forums as a collective rather than a community of individuals.

management courses are the worst. Unless you have daddys reference to get a job out of uni, youre fucked. Get into some hardcore course. You may still have a chance

t. didnt have daddy's reference, now unemployed after hundreds of applications

companies hire only four types ot people in 2019:
1) Women
2) Racial minorities
3) STEM graduates
4) People with family ties to the firm

If you're not one of these types, expect unemployment or underemployment. This is the truth.

The secret to being a pro at arguing is to look up things you didnt know about the topic. If you just rely on what someone said or you read then youre fucked and should consider becoming a fish gutter.

If you dont know shit about a topic, you cant defend your opinion.

Attached: 1jlexu.jpg (800x600, 70K)

You must be a nigger then because white men have facts to support their views. Niggers resort to violence and emotional pleas when they're losing their arguments. You're either larping or a nigger. Probably both.

there are more than enough scientific studies posted, you're just a moron

>Mention how the FED creates a cycle of debt to coworkers while also mentioning how both Lincoln and Hitler started printing their own money to combat central banks
>They think of Hitler in a more positive light because they haven't been programmed regarding his economic policies
The key is to get your argument across while avoiding "trigger phrases" that cause instant dismissal, like calling jews "globalists" or "bankers".

Maybe you're just arguing like a retard. Dont speak about shit you dont know about or are not certain that you can back up with facts.

>The problem is that we mostly can't fix the problems in other countries and we can't invite an entire continent of people into ours.

That's true but that's also that's also a strawman isn't it? If many people will die in fire in some building and we can only save some of them, do we then say that we save none of them because we can't save all of them? Why not take as many as we can even if it's not all of them?

By the way, it wouldn't be fair of me to just argue with you like this. Right now I think if this were a real life debates I'd have you on the ropes and that's because you're not taking charge of were the debates go. When I'm asking you question like I'm doing I'm more or less directing where the debate is gonna go. If I ask you "Why not help some of them etc." I have, metaphorically speaking, chosen were the battle was gonna take place, which isn't something you ought to allow. You should say something like "That's not the question I'm interested in right now. Right now I'm just trying to demonstrate that a diverse society is more likely to produce inter ethnic conflict." Or "If *you* want to risk the future of your society on a humanitarian project, go right ahead, but the rest of us should not be forced to partake in the same project, especially if we assess the risk differently."

You want to be on your own terrain.

I'm not planning to have a "management" job anyway. Sure it's about politics in those places.

See, maybe I'm wrong here since I'm still a student, but there are two relevant types of jobs, when we're talking about management education.
1) Based on "experience". You were a manager at a company A, therefore you can later be a manager in a company B and maybe get a .3% raise in a couple of years. No one really cares for this shit because your only argument is that you've been there for some time.
2) Based on financial portfolio. Straight up, how much money you made in business. That's real talk. How many properties you managed, what you sold, to whom you sold etc.

You could always sidestep or steer the discussion but just enough so that even if someone calls you out they won't have proof you're retarded.

Attached: Gtthose+happy+merchant+hands+oy+vey+antisemitism+_78f515c4ea1cfbf7b4b015356a9c7604.jpg (281x325, 16K)

Why are Americans so fucking dumb? You lot aren't even fucking white.

You just bitch and moan about stupid bullshit

>HURR I CAN'T ARGUE BECAUSE I'M A FUCKING SOCIETAL REJECT
>I THINK BECAUSE I CALLED SOME CUNT A JEW ON Jow Forums it = GOOD ARGUING

Fucking kill yourself faggot.

Attached: images.png (216x233, 8K)

Shut up nigger

I think the west being responsible is a bit subjective and it is a bit of a cop out to the fact that we all have agendas that negatively affect one party or another. Is it really the responsibility of the next generation of a country to apologize for the previous generations agenda? I used that specifically in the argument with my friend because he brought up europes complacencies in the toppling of libya and the migrant crisis. For the first argument i have no idea how to respond. My first inclination is that these resources should serve the people of the country and the allys of the country. Like ypu said with the baby with the congenial disease and our ability to lessen suffering with our wealth of resources, theres this innate desire to fix suffering and misfortune in the world but we have to realize what causes that. A baby is something personal and something that never had a chance to better its situation. Its nurturing of us to want to take care of a baby because we associate it with a family or even our family right? But realistically, unless i personally know the migrant or refugee, why would i have that same sympathy and drive to fix their misfortune? Yes i have the resources, but that desire comes from my abstract attachment to a baby or someone i know going through a hard time. Once you seperate that, its hard to justify spending more resources on people you have no relation to for the sole reason of having wealth. This lack of justification bega the question, is it really an obligation of the west to fix the misfortune in the world just because we have wealth? Im more inclined to spend that wealth on generational families and people who are born/have loyalty to only America.

It is a total crutch and it screwed me hard

>persuasion, rhetoric, logical fallacies, negotiation and influence
recommend a book to read for each one or various of these?

I found becoming right wing after gamer gate has prepared me for arguments a lot better. You’re constantly tested by liberal society to find reason and arguments.

I even argued with a dozen ((university students)) on normiebook who were in favour of abortion. To be honest I don’t even care that much, but none of them could argue with both stoic philosophy and science.

gay

Nativism and naturalization isnt a very evidence heavy debate. Its mostly justifying why i deserve more rights and resources than based pablo who just got his citizenship last year

The typical American way to argue on this site, fucking pathetic.

This. In my experience half the battle of successful arguing is not turning it into an argument. This means giving ground a lot at first by acknowledging valid or slightly valid parts of their reasoning, and then slithering inside of their head with lots of Socratic questioning tactics. You negotiate from a place of aparent timidity and work your way up. It's like being a diplomat.

The coup-de-grace is if you can actually lead them to arrive at your own conclusions, but this is only possible with someone who's actually trying to reason and not someone with an axe to grind

Once your boss is red pilled you are like white Jews.

>He doesn't argue and debate with himself constantly to approve his ability to debate
heh, nothin personnel kid

Attached: ICameToLaugh.jpg (854x640, 332K)

>For the first argument i have no idea how to respond.

The problem, I think, comes from the fact that at this point in the debate I can already sense that you've lost sight of your primary goal. Notice how:

1. "We must allow mass immigration."

and

2. "We must help people."

aren't at all the same proposition. Indeed, not all cases of helping people come from mass migration. But by losing sight of the fact that what you and I care about it preventing (1), we can get trapped into arguing about (2), losing over (2), and then through the confusion it somehow gets insinuated that people who believe that we should help have also demonstrated that mass migration was just the thing to do.

So you always have to be attentive to what's being debated. To someone who says "we have to help" you may say "I don't necessarily disagree. But what I'm talking about is mass migrations and its consequences. Not all forms of helping comes from migration."

And there's other thing you could do but I have to go soon. The rest of your arguments I found were not that good in this specific response but that's mostly because I successfully side tracked you very early on and trapped you into some other conversation about helping people in general.

Remember that companies hire a manager only if the expected effect on the operating cash flow is a net positive. This means that a $70k-80k/year manager HAS to prove that they will bring up more than that in terms of hard cash to the firm.

This usually can only be proven by: track record (as you said), which is directly observable only in a handful of industries; client network, which THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. This is why management education and general business education are a scam. True value in the field comes only with a client network, the building of which is a skill that CANT be thought.

There are plenty of facts to back you up and no one can prepare for you. You just need to be more persuasive. You'll know it's working when they start to rage. They always do.

taught

You don't have to convince them. You have to beat them. Make them feel like losers. They won't accept their defeat but eventually they'll realize you're right.

Attached: latest findings.png (1692x1936, 452K)

Well, this ties to another problem. In the UK at least, the cost of replacing an employee is 150% of their base salary. They are not gonna hire me. Period. There's no way I can prove I can bring that much value without experience.

I agree with you on the client network. I think it's time to risk and work in jobs where you get paid by how much you can get sold. That way they take you on because they have less expense than if they had to pay you full time and they don't give a shit if you're shit since you won't make money that way. I'm talking about jobs related to sales, real estate, and finance.

Also, look business education is a scam, but it is a good scam. Even for students. You get education relatively easily, not much pressure during studies and in 20 years, you can still stay you have a degree. At that point, no one will care what it is from, but they'll care about you having it.

true, but there are alot of factors relating to quality of life that are relevant to it. Im more of a white man’s burden imperialist myself, but I understand the Nativist mindset.

I thought we were just having a mock debate and simulating responses, i didnt realize it was some kind of trick question. Why would i intentionally be dodgy to you when you are asking me what my response would be?

>right-wing Christian worldview
Actually most of us are anti Zionists.

I dont want to enrage my friend, i just wanted to win the debate

Shit, we should start making "Rhetoric General" threads. Train ourselves to debate and win over normies.

Attached: Cat Trick.gif (400x144, 1013K)

So bait threads?