how can i get better at debating and argue about anything?

>>136256232
just try to say more random inteligent words, works for me lol

>>136256232
Learn to speak Chinese.

>>136256232
Study Aristotelian/classical logic
Study fallacies
Study rhetoric

>>136256232
Understand the subject you are debating.
Find inconsistencies in their arguements.
No better way to argue if you understand both sides perfectly.
Dont listen to the poolak.

>>136256232

With Logos, Ethos n Pathos

learn how to write and edit and revise your writing.

Not to be a mememaster but Jordan Peterson has an awesome document about the steps to write an essay and about how writing is a way to think more formally and consistently.

https://www.scribd.com/document/317511611/Template

but youll never do it you a lazy assbitc

debating & arguing is a liberal art, no real value desu

>>136256232
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

>>136256232
"Winning" debates is just wankery, whether it winning by convincing the other person, the people listening to the debate or just by superior argumentation leaving the opponent speechless.

The only way to actually win is to learn from discussions, otherwise they are a waste and should be avoided.

>>136256497
>Dont listen to the poolak
That advice works for every question ever.

>>136256406
This. Also, lefties love to use ad hominems. Call them out when they do, and remain civil yourself.

>blah

http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm

>>136256668
I remember growing up always hearing about how dumb polish people were. It wasn't til i met them irl and on here to find out that its 100% true.
I want to like them butbthey are so bland, boring, unattractive and simple.

>>136256232
good question, but its not politics
>>>/adv/

Take the side or jesus christ and truth. It will make you seem like a dick at times, but you won't be wrong.

>>136256232
What do you want to debate. Masterdebater here.

>>136256232
>how can i get better at debating and argue about anything?

read the hermetica

>>136256406
what this guy said

make sure you're right first

>>136256232
you can't. you are born smart or stupid. if you arent naturally good at it, you can improve some superficial skills but are forever going to be behind someone genuinely smart

>>136257197
Intelligence and social competence/extroversion/persuasion don't always go hand in hand. You've got autistic geniuses who can't win an individual let alone a crowd, and morons with loads of charisma.

>>136257471
charismatic argument is a function of iq

charisma in the sense of smashing poosy is not

you asked about argumentation

if you are gonna hoot and holler like a nigger, you can in an audience. but it is not na argument

>>136257040
debate this >>136257197

>>136256232
you need to know stuff AND know how to dissect that stuff into small chunks you can apply to other things

some pepls just say what they hear often. you have to be the guy who liek knows stuffs. theres liek 4 guys who knows stuffs

File: thinking.png (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>136256232
Have you ever noticed that the most convincing debaters are usually either journalists or authors? This is because they've written about stuff and have sorted out their thoughts beforehand. You can do this too. In fact, /pol/ can be a good place to practice.

>Write about a certain topic.
>Systematically address each criticism you can think of.
>Once you run out of counterarguments, look for more. Google around. Go on leftypol and ask for their best counterarguments.
>Prefer logical arguments over empirical arguments because statistics can say anything.

>>136256320
This.
I always tried to argue with facts, logic and knowledge but always got burned.
Then I just started arguing with pseudo-intellectual non-sensical babble and now I can shut a bitch down on almost any topic.

>>136257151
this

most people haven't even read a book on the majority of subjects, don't talk shit if you can't back up your assertions or understand the basic fallacies made in regards to any particular argument

Also important to know emotional arguments have more sway than objective arguments.

The proper response to Bernie saying "education is a human right" isn't to explain the economic unfeasibility of the implications of the statement, you will not sway anyone's opinion.

>>136256232
Just practice.

When you debate you learn your own flaws and the flaws in your reasoning, your speaking skills and in your own beliefs.

The most important thing is training your speech and the ability to stay cool headed in a heated debate .

A great debater can out-debate someone lesser than him even if he isn't even correct. So just practice. Engage people on social media. You'll see where you lag pretty quick.

>>136256528
Shut up Jordan.

>>136256631
The way to win a debate is to convince the listeners. The person you debate with will almost never admit or submit. Most often when they lose they'll just revert to anger or "lol I dont have time to educate you" or any other way to back out while saving face. It's just about the audience/listener.

>>136259269
you people are delusional

verbal ability is directly tied to IQ

if you have a shit math iq you can practice but run into a hard ceiling, and improve less than others

same for verbal

if you are already bad at it, chances are high your verbal iq is not high, because you already should have developed it

>>136256930
Ya, because we would all rather see a "How can white bois even compete" thread

>>136256232
Ask questions.
If you ask enough, your opponent will eventually prove themselves to be logically inconsistent.
Once they do that, point it out, and you win.

>>136256232
>how can i get better at debating and argue about anything?
Get married and have kids, trust me

>>136257197
>>136257977
>you can improve some superficial skills but are forever going to be behind someone genuinely smart.
Christopher Langan is the smartest living person, yet he was a bar bouncer and now cleans up manure from farm animals. Motivation, determination, and work ethic determine outcome at a much greater rate than IQ.
It's like pushups, maybe you can do 10 now, but if you work at it, you'll get to 20, 25, 30 and so on. Say I can do 25 now, and don't work at it because I am naturally good at pushups, I'm better than anyone else so why try, in time you will exceed me with simple work ethic. Not to mention that you will have momentum and not have to become a bar bouncer to get by in life.

>>136259945
He asked how he can improve. I say practice. You go on a rant about how people with lower IQs can improve when they practice but can't reach the same potential as naturally gifted people.

Do you see the redundancy of your post?

>>136260572
This
You'll always be behind someone smarter IF that smarter person has put in similar effort into knowing the subject.
It's like talent. What is talent? I buy a guitar and practice for 500 hours in 100 days, you do the exact same, at the end of the 100 days, you're way better, even though we did the same work because you're more talented. But if you only put in 100 hours in 100 days, I'll be better, in most cases.
Also, REALLY smart ppl are often jack-of-all-trades but master-of-none, so you can be smarter than true geniuses in a couple fields if you put in the time.

>>136260572
oh boy here it comes

if you really think you can put in enough effort to surpass someone that has a significantly higher iq than you, then you need also believe niggers can do the same

you are positing that the function of the brain is nrelated to the genes that CREATE the brain, and that the functional speed of a computer is unrelated tothe quality of the circuits in it, or the code of the program it runs (genes are both hard and softare)

this assertion is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be around

there is a solid and steady rpogression from apet o modern man, and from average man to genius

the ENTIRE spectrum is defined genetically. the mechanics are as concrete as lever strength in limbs, but function at the level of neurons and electron transfer

you. are. dumb.

even your argumentation is retarded consiting of
1. citation of anecdote unrelated to the core issue (you cite his profession. not related)
2. metaphor for physical training (related, but incorrect)

color me impressed forrest

>>136261265
>if you really think you can put in enough effort to surpass someone that has a significantly higher iq than you, then you need also believe niggers can do the same
Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean they have a basic fundamental understanding of something and are able to argue effectively in regards to objective reality. IQ is not a measure of what you know.

You are making a false equivalence of knowledge and IQ. I imagine niggers know more than I do about robbing liquor stores and stealing tires.

>>136261265
>>136261558
>>136260572
>you are positing that the function of the brain is nrelated to the genes that CREATE the brain, and that the functional speed of a computer is unrelated tothe quality of the circuits in it, or the code of the program it runs (genes are both hard and softare)
Also your refutation of that anon only makes sense if IQ is 100% hereditary.

>>136261558
unless they are raised in a closet the chances of you being more knoledgeable about a large variety of topics than someone more than 1 s.d. above you is quite slim, in fact

all people learn basic argumentation and math in school, and have been absorbing it their entire life

if you are shit presently, it is probably because you are poor at retaining information

>>136261767
iq is 70% heritable, and the remaining variation is GENETIC VARIATION

meaning that if your iq drops compared to your parents, you have MUTATIONAL LOAD that is not inherited. meaning the iq-genetic correlation is about 90, environment accounting for 10% or less

>>136261797
>unless they are raised in a closet the chances of you being more knoledgeable about a large variety of topics than someone more than 1 s.d. above you is quite slim, in fact
Jordan Peterson presented evidence to the opposite, the average amount of people regardless of IQ, race or sex have read 0 books regarding any given subject.

>all people learn basic argumentation and math in school, and have been absorbing it their entire life
>if you are shit presently, it is probably because you are poor at retaining information
Ability to retain, understand and shape concepts is a component of IQ, not sure how this refutes my assertion that IQ and knowledge are separate concepts at all, please elaborate.

>>136262047
>iq is 70% heritable, and the remaining variation is GENETIC VARIATION
This is a retarded argument and you're essentially agreeing with my strawman that your argument is actually IQ is 100% hereditary. Are you sure this is your position?

>>136256232
Socratic Method. Find cognitive dissonance, point it out, provide ideas to them that should otherwise be congruent with their beliefs but aren't because they aren't really thinking things through logically. Find out these incongruities with constant questioning and probing into your enemy's line of thought.

For example from a debate I had:
Some mexican kid drug mule had ingested some drugs in an attempt to prove to border patrol that it was water or something innocuous and ended up OD'ing. The person I was debating had said "Thats fucked up the guards should have stopped him" to which I simply responded "Why? He ingested it with sound mind, he consented to trying to prove it was something it wasnt and reaped the consequences."

The guy I was debating said "It doesnt matter, everyone knew it wasnt water, they should have stopped him, they eserve to be tried for murder"

So I responded "huh, so you shouldn't be able to take harmful drugs even if you consent to it"

To which he said "of course, if its going to kill you, someone would be forced to stop you"

Then I answered "So you must be really against drug legalization, huh?"

He stared at me dumbfounded, this bernie supporter. He was totally absent minded in his gut reaction, and held a belief he didn't even agree with at face value because "muh dead drug mule :("

What ill say is that it takes practice. It takes quick wit, it takes cunning, and it takes practice. Nice Allen Shore pic btw, despite the whole cast being a bunch of liberal nuts, Boston Legal was a great show.

>>136262359
the average iq is 100. sure, if you are 90 iq you have a good chance of being able to read more than him... IF you also have the patience

real cases of this are stunningly rare

let's assume you are above average, 110. the idea you can catch up to someone that is 130 is ridiculous.

people around 130 often read a book every single day.

good luck matching that, buddy.

the gulf is so vast you don't even begin to understand. classic dunning krueger

>iq is 100% genetic
it is, very nearly. about 90% genetic and 70% heritably genetic, it has a long left tail (do you even understand the meaning of that?)

check out gwas

you can't build a machine that has no parts. genes are the parts of neurological cell function you retard. it doesn't come from the aether

final bit: traits must be GENETIC for evolution to function. if intelligence is NOT genetic, then the survivors of selective processes do not pass on traits to their offspring to enhance intelligence over time

so take moths, imagine a moth's color is determined by the rain, or humidity. if gray moths all get eaten because they do NOT blend in, there are the same number of gray moths EVERY generation and they get eaten EVERY TIME and there is NO CHANGE and NO EVOLUTION

because intelligence evolved it MUsT be genetic

do you understand this? it is literally undergraduate biology

>>136259470
>(((?)))

>>136263277
Is it an environmental factor or a genetic factor if a mother drinks while pregnant and it has an effect on the fetus?

>>136263277
finish a book every day. my bad

>>136263467
the pathway for alcohol damage in the womb is partially genetic, you can figure this simple shit out, right retard?

if you DAMAGE your genetics you DAMAGE your iq

BECAUE IQ is GENETIC

>>136256232
If you need someone to answer this question for you then you will never know.

>>136263492
I agree with the majority of your post, of course someone with slightly above average IQ will have to exert relatively more effort to reach the level of an averagely achieving far outlier (as you pointed out IQ has a long tail, 130 is a very high outlier).

>>136263450
You quoted Peterson. I'd suggest you stop watching him. Especially as a conversationalist or debater he's a hack.

>>136263734
I tried to tell them

he might as fuck ask the solution for 2 + 2 and say that effort can compensate for iq

>>136263703
Ok so the effect is is "partially genetic".

Is the affect environmental or genetic?

>>136256232
>debating and argue
why would you want to? discussion is much more worthwhile.

>>136263966
I just TOLD you, it is partially genetic

the ONLY environmental effect to IQ is DAMAGE

there is no environmental effect to raise iq. it can only DAMAGE it.

so ho do you measure that?

for a fetal alcohol baby, IQ is HALF environmental

for someone that has no genetic damage it is nearly NONE, maybe 1% environmental

ho do you choose a proper eighting for the variable?

you cannot, really, because of the framingof the question, and that is the trick the anti-iq idiots trap people in

properly stated iq is 100% genetic in origin for every unit increase

this is a parsimonious and precise definition

asking ho much is environmental is conflating statistical definitions

that can get you kicked out of any half decent school

Just try to be more eloquent and don't let your opponents see vacuosity of your vocabulary.

>>136263450

Who is Peterson? Do you even read?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion

>>136263816
>Who is Peterson? Do you even read?
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion

>>136256232
Go lifting.

>>136264429
>there is no environmental effect to raise iq. it can only DAMAGE it.
But you're basis this theory on the idea that humans always have ideal conditions of pregnancy, a relatively modern situation, infant and mother mortality rates are nothing like they were historically.

Your base line for saying "no environmental effect to raise iq" is during peak civilization when we may have reached the complete potential for environmental effects to influence IQ. If I'm wrong please correct me.

>>136264565
>That's not how you greentext

If you weren't petersonposting my apologies. There's a load of fanboys of his on /pol/ recently.

>>136256232
Lurk more

Start arguments online.

Try to defend positions you don't agree with

just watch CNN and memorize their zingers

fire one off anytime you feel feelings in an argument

>>136264814
every point of iq expressed is genetic

the expression of iq is a genetic phenomenon

the REDUCTION of iq is an environmental phenomenon

as stated, iq is genetic. kangaroos are genetic. a pile of goop on the floor from a miscarriage caused by nuclear fallout from a kanagroo fetus is ENVIRONMENTAL. the KANGAROO Is NOT ENVIRONMENTAL

do you get it? and for fucks sake you are australian learn your/yyou're at least jesus fuck

you really think an idiot that can't use proper grammar like you is discovering something grounbreaking everyone else missed?

File: ameena-and-korey-CEDA.jpg (72KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 960x720px

>>136256232
I got you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsYalIpqfqs

>>136266953
My grammatical error was clearly typing "basis" instead of "basing", and you claim to be some paragon of grammar and this somehow gives you some credibility? Completely laughable, retard.

I've tried to have a discussion with you but it seems rather pointless to bother if you're going to so actively seek out an excuse to insult me to the point you make a complete ass of yourself.

>>136267224
nothing I have said is a theory. it is literally the bedrock of neurology

you are thickheaded and argumentative. the things I've said are quite clear

iq, like any biological or computative function, has a code by hich it is expressed

calling IQ environmental is as retarded as calling the phenomenon of a kangaroo environmental. it is a phenomenon caused by genetic function

dysfunction is environmental.

it is that simple.

civil discussion does not entitle your misconceptions to validity

you are incorrect. period.

>>136266953
>tries to give relevant arguments a few posts in ends up with
>argumentum ad hominem

just end it now...you don't have to suffer, leave the threat and read a book

>>136258252
>>136259267
>>136256406
>>136256497
>>136257151
All good points.

>>136258252
>Have you ever noticed that the most convincing debaters are usually either journalists or authors? This is because they've written about stuff and have sorted out their thoughts beforehand. You can do this too. In fact, /pol/ can be a good place to practice.
Bingo. How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

>>136268185
ah, yes, and the book in mind is?

I should read about tabula rasa and things that ignore neurology, right?

>>136259470
>>136259269
And I should've tagged this guy in my reply too. >>136268320

>>136256232
Debate is pointless for the most part. A lot of people are too emotional and irrational to be able to be persuaded from their current world view. Only debate people that you think you have a decent chance of convincing.

debating is a skill, you get better by debating.