Im fucking SICK of getting btfo in arguments. How the fuck do

call your opponent a cuck/numale/virgin whenever they use a valid argument.

>mfw have never been btfo
Feels good to be a god

>>35714152
Don't forget using a smug anime face too

>>35714114
Use nothing but strawmen

>>35714114
do actual research into the topics instead of just spouting things you've heard. You cant lose when you can cite the facts.

File: 4557591[1].jpg (69KB, 520x678px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 520x678px

>>35714152
Im being serious here, Joe.

Im tired of being the guy that can't postulate his opinions coherently and made to look like a retard.
I want to be the one who gets to be smug and right about everything.

you dont have to refute their entire argument or even their central point. just pick his weakest line, quote half of it and say "[buzzword] literally believe this".
dont forget the smug anime pic.

>>35714114
Don't have shit viewpoints

>>35714114
When I was in college, debates boiled down to who could make the most noise. Interrupt your opponent, shout him down, and if possible have as many of your friends help you gang up on him.

The one who acts civilized loses.

OP would you like a debate? You may choose any topic you wish.

>>35714114
have an actual argument with actual legitimate facts to back it up.

>>35714244
Hmmm
At the risk of making myself look like a total idiot why not.
I got nothing else better to do today.

Debate Topic:
America refuses to give Universal FREE Healthcare to its citizens because of influence of Big Pharma

Go to a forest and survive there by your own. Never talk to a human being again. You cant lose arguements if you never start one

Learn logical buzzwords like cornman and throw them out constantly.

>>35714114
If you're losing arguments you might just be wrong. Re-evaluate your ideas

remember anyone who looks """good""" at debating realises that winning the debate is more important than being correct/truthful

its all about talking out your ass and stopping the other guy from doing the same

cancer

>>35714196

But he's right though. Your problem is that you are trying to be rational on 4chan.

State your argument, but also support it with memes and insults. That is how the chans work. At least it's not as bad as non chan sites where you have to register, where you have to resort to fedora tipping methodologies of "debating", and then fedora tipper mods ban you when you are winning and disturbing the hivemind.

>>35714351
Not neccessarily.

You either are failing at presenting/postulating them or you can not fulfill the obligation of "Burden of Proof" or some shit which makes you look less credible compared to your opposition but they can still be factually wrong about some things.

>>35714367
WEll im talking about not just on 4chan, but outside this shithole as well.

In real life, I get btfo alot more because Im not hiding behind a computer or have the luxury google at my fingertips.

File: 1488998485148.png (163KB, 409x410px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 409x410px

The way to always win debates is to always be right. The way you achieve this is by only debating people you know are wrong.

>>35714297
Free healthcare is socialism.

Socialism has always failed in non-homogeneous societies.

Why should I pay for another person to get treatment? Why are the burdens of others on my back?

>>35714378
Can you fucking read I said maybe

>>35714396
Well let me give you two rules that will greatly increase your success rates:
1: Only debate people that are less smart than you
2: Use as many fallacies as possible

If you follow these rules you'll never lose, as stupid people don't know how to parry fallacies such as the no true Scotsman, appeal to authority or even simple ad hominems.

>>35714446
>implying socialism is bad
>implying that there are no other places in the world where Free Health Care exists but it works

Im tired of them feeding us these same old lines. Sure socialism in America has always had a bad reputation, but its 2017. People should look past such superficial fears in favor of something as beneficial as healthcare.
And believe that Big Pharma plays a signifigant role in denying American people the healthcare they need and deserve

>>35714455
>Only debate people that are less smart than you
So be retarded. Nice. Fuck off you sub 100 IQ dumbass.

>Use as many fallacies as possible
So be retarded. Nice. Fuck off you sub 100 IQ dumbass.

File: tumblr_m806p1Ifi51qcn4i6o1_500.jpg (35KB, 500x625px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x625px

>>35714185
I was in the debate club for uni and I've seen people win solely on just doing what these guys suggest >>35714152
>>35714180

Debating in this day in age is ruined thanks to the Daily Show and Steven Colbert who just makes the opposite look irrational with edits. Everyone thinks they can just make a one liner and that makes them automatically win a debate.

Use logical fallacies and fuck shit up senpai. Normies don't know how they work so you will always hold the advantage

>>35714452
Can you...?
You are not necessarily wrong just because you are having difficulty in presenting your point, you social retard. It just means your opponent may be more articulate than you

>>35714490
>but its 2017
Current year argument, you instantly lose.

>People should look past such superficial fears in favor of something as beneficial as healthcare.
Appeal to emotion.


Better luck next time.

>>35714114

Read Plato/Socrates. I suggest starting with The Republic. Which is literally just a very long argument.

Study the style of Socratic method and argument and you will be unbeatable. Or atleast considered an insufferable faggot who people want to feed poison to.

>>35714505
Pointing out a fallacy is a fallacy in itself

>>35714494
>>35714114

See? Excellent use of these tactics. Now the burden of proof is on me trying to defend my level of intelligence (which is not even linked to the question at hand, very important in an effective ad hominem) and ignore any argument that was going on beforehand.
And after all, what better win you could get than derailing any train of thought in a group by angering them?
Effective tactic if you want to look smart, but be careful: people that are already used to arguing a lot will immediately spot that you're trying to bamboozle them, and will utterly destroy you.
That is why you carefully choose your targets if you're not 100% fluent with the topic at hand.

>>35714529
I don't want to read shit written by assholes that speak in absolutely english
I read "The art of Always Being Right" by Arthur Shchupenhaur, but I couldnt understand most of it because he wrote in a very ye old english fashion.

>>35714537
actually pointing out that pointing out a fallacy is a fallacy is itself a fallacy.
i conclude that free healthcare in america is a good thing.

>>35714114
frogpost

original comment, copyright me

>>35714537
>trying to fallacy fallacy me

Nope.

Saying "it's the current year" is not an argument. You know it, I know it. The date on the calendar does not cause a gigantic shift in the political or social tide.

Furthermore, emotions are by nature, subjective, and cannot provide any objective argument.

I still win. You're just being difficult on le 4chanz because you can.

>>35714551
*obsolete
agadfaw

>>35714505
>But Hey my opponent used a fallacy! Look at him! That means he's wrong!

Stupid.
>I claim that the sky is blue, and I know what I'm talking about because my mum left the basement and told me it was blue
>HAHA, APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. That means the sky is green. Check'em!

>>35714590
see: >>35714583

Also:

>projecting this hard
>believing projection is an argument.

Dear, oh dear.

>>35714583
this is actually not me>>35714537
I decided not to respond because that is not a good counter argument to my post at all and I realized you are small time...

>>35714612
>I decided not to respond because that is not a good counter argument to my post at all and I realized you are small time...
>lol I got blown the fuck out and couldn't argue back so I will pretend that what you said sucks and that you are bad, therefore I win.

Not going to happen, Chuck.

get a good vocabulary and think before you argue. try to make sure there is nothing they can say before every point you make. you will have to think from their perspective too so you know what they will say

>>35714606
I'm not saying that it's true, only that simply saying "fallacy" in response is entirely pointless and doesn't do anything.
But hey, what do I caer? I'm just here to chill bruh!

>>35714446
Not that guy but may I try to sharpen my debate skills here as well? civilly. I pick pro-universal-healthcare side.

>Free healthcare is socialism. Socialism has always failed in non-homogeneous societies.

may I cite Canada which has socialized medicine but privatized other things? Canada is a non-homogenous society and this combination of socialism and privatization seems to be successful. Actually if you look at the world happiness index for 2017, you'll notice the top countries on it are extremely socialized, i.e. Norway which is number one.

>Why should I pay for another person to get treatment? Why are the burdens of others on my back?
Think of it this way; the money from your taxes going into the healthcare system is similar to a group pension fund. You are paying for yourself and your family to receive pension (healthcare) their entire lives. You naturally hope no ailment or accident will befall them and if none does, the money you put away which was not used by you or your family stays in the big fund. This may be used in the future by your grandchildren, or a portion of it (tiny, because of how many people are contributing) will go toward somebody who is low income or fixed income. You really aren't paying for everybody, you are essentially paying a fee to stay healthy in the long run, no matter what cost. If your procedure cost more than the tax dollars you accumulated, other peoples taxes in the fund that they haven't used because they are healthy or dead would be paying for you.

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>35714639
Seems to me that my victory was acquired several posts ago when you failed to challenge any of what I said....

>>35714234
best advice ITT, truly.

>>35714671
** no matter what cost to the healthcare system, not out of your pocket

>>35714662
Let's actually examine your "argument".

>>I claim that the sky is blue, and I know what I'm talking about because my mum left the basement and told me it was blue
Why do you believe your hypothetical mother without evidence? Why not go outside and find out for yourself? If seeing isn't enough for belief, why not conduct experiments and perform a study of your own to get empirical evidence?

Taking everything at face value is the basis of becoming a mindless sheep.

>HAHA, APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. That means the sky is green. Check'em!
As already stated, pointing out a fallacy doesn't make their argument invalid. It does however make their argument invalid if they had no argument to begin with, or use anecdotal evidence or subject belief as the basis of one.

GET
FUCKED.

>>35714710
Oh boy. I'm not talking about arguments, but facts. using the fallacy fallacy to disprove a fact is stupid. There is nothing wrong with pointing out a fallacy in an argument, but it doesn't make one's assertion immediately false.
Are you doing it on purpose? I hope you do so.

>>35714671
>may I cite Canada which has socialized medicine but privatized other things?
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/healthcare-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-2016-report-1.3171718
https://www.city-journal.org/html/ugly-truth-about-canadian-health-care-13032.html

That was easy.

>the money from your taxes going into the healthcare system is similar to a group pension fund. You are paying for yourself and your family to receive pension (healthcare) their entire lives.
No I am not. I don't chose where my money goes, unlike a group pension. Money may go to my family, but it may also go to a 12-time relapsing meth addict with prostate cancer.

> You really aren't paying for everybody, you are essentially paying a fee to stay healthy in the long run, no matter what cost.
But insurance achieves the same thing, without having to fork out for other people who I do not know, and also curtails the ridiculous waiting times and substandard care as noted in my two sources.

Try again

>>35714710
>pointing out a fallacy doesn't make their argument invalid

Yes it does. An argument is getting from a premise to a conclusion. If you used a fallacy to get to your conclusion, your argument is invalid, even though your conclusion may be true.

File: 2017-03-22 19_04_44-logical-fallacies.png (1077×765).png (9KB, 170x113px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 170x113px

>>35714775
Ummm, no sweetie. Not how that works pumpkin.

File: 1487647897988.png (575KB, 673x522px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 673x522px

>>35714196
cherry pick all your information.

Whenever the other guys or gals present a valid arguement call him out for being a blue pilled sheeple and post a funny merchant man to make them look like a shill. That'll show them.


Either that or just pretend to be retarded. Works on pol

>>35714765
Where do the vulnerable of society (the ass cancer meth guy, for example) get their healthcare from?

>>35714791
You have poor reading comprehension. I will just repeat my post: An argument is getting from a premise to a conclusion. If you used a fallacy to get to your conclusion, your argument is invalid, even though your conclusion may be true.

>>35714822
>Where do the vulnerable of society (the ass cancer meth guy, for example) get their healthcare from?
They either pay for it themselves, or they continue to be ill and die.

It's not my responsibility to bear the brunt of the poor decisions of others.
I shouldn't be responsible for a cancer riddled addict.
If they spent their money on useful things instead of drugs, and focused on actually providing something to society, they would be able to afford healthcare.

>>35714114
>How the fuck do I get better at debating?

helps to know a lot about the shit you argue about and to recognize when the other person is using bullshit tactics(strawmen, changing the subject, ignoring your points, name calling). Get good at pointing their distractions out while providing facts, and you'll win. Avoid arguments over moral issues like abortion because you'll go round and round with people and never reach any kind of resolution.

>>35714861
Say they can't pay for it.
>they'll die

I want to end this argument, you're kind of... like... I hope you're not religious.

>>35714114
The answer is simple - STUDY

>>35714765
>http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/healthcare-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-2016-report-1.3171718
The article claims that in Canada, the MEDIAN wait times for "medically necessary" treatment is 20 weeks. However, it always gives wait times of other cities in the country which are significantly shorter than the median and varies are on large your city is.
taken directly from the link:
> New Brunswick: 38.8 weeks
>Nova Scotia: 34. 8
P.E.I: 31.4
>Newfoundland and Labrador: 26
>British Columbia: 25.2
>Alberta: 22.9
>Manitoba: 20.6
>Quebec: 18.9
>Saskatchewan: 16.6
> Ontario: 15.6

Naturally, if you live in an area with only a few hospitals and a large population, then wait times will be longer. And it also states that depending on "medical necessity" which I can deduct is how severe your condition is, determines your priority and how long you wait. It all seems like really trivial information if you actually READ the article.
Let me ask you this, would you rather be put on a wait list for your colonoscopy that will be virtually free, or be American and never get seen by the doctors because you can't afford to pay 6000 dollars for the same treatment...?
Well im waiting.
First of all I would like to address what counts as "medically necessary"

>>35714849
And I will ask you to read the image again.

>Presuming that because a claim (see synonym: argument, assertion, asseveration) has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been committed, that is is necessarily wrong (committing a fallacy does not make the argument wrong)

There you go, hope you get it now.

>>35714551
>Plato wrote in archaic English
Toppest of keks, kind gentlesir.

>>35714926
cont

A "medically necessary" patient is anyone that has a severe ailment, condition, etc when compared to other patients.

So if you walk into the Canadian hospital with a broke arm, you will probably be seen and take care immediately due to how simple the injury is.

If you need pain meds or something then yes your wait times will probably be much longer since that requires more paper work and there are other people that demand attention mroe than you....

>>35714933
The other faggot is implying that as long as the fallacy is a part of the argument, then the argument is invalid. Argument and claim are two different things, m69.

>>35714926
>Naturally, if you live in an area with only a few hospitals and a large population, then wait times will be longer.
So, you admit that socialised medicine is unable to cater to everyone's needs properly, as money is not being properly managed for the provision of equal healthcare across all areas.

Point one to me.

>And it also states that depending on "medical necessity" which I can deduct is how severe your condition is, determines your priority and how long you wait
Or if you have insurance, no matter your severity, you get short waiting times and higher quality care, without having to sit on a waiting list to see an underpaid member of staff that may go on a Union strike that one day where you need care.

>Let me ask you this, would you rather be put on a wait list for your colonoscopy that will be virtually free, or be American and never get seen by the doctors because you can't afford to pay 6000 dollars for the same treatment...?
You could raise 6000 dollars faster than the wait time for a colonoscopy, especially if you have a job, skills, income, investments etc. AKA being an adult.

>>35714935
Well they translate these ancient fucks they make them sound like they are from another time period, rather than just putting in plainly.

>>35714933
Can you read dum dum? An argument is a reasoning, it is not synonymous with a claim, which is the conclusion that you reach with your reasoning.

Try understanding basic epistomology before 'contributing', you fucking philistine.

>>35714996
Open a thesaurus and look up some synonyms, you'll find I am correct and you are a fool.

>>35714933
Dude, your image is evidence for exactly what the other guy said. take the L

>>35714997
>>35714997
>So, you admit that socialised medicine is unable to cater to everyone's needs properly, as money is not being properly managed for the provision of equal healthcare across all areas.
No, just pointing out that can influence when you will be seen by doctors and treated.
If anything, im only being proven right, because in America its either you're covered and can have the expensive operation, or youre not and just die.

>>35715006
>Try understanding basic epistomology before 'contributing', you fucking philistine.
Okay, once you've finished buzzwording.

>the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.
I've already made clear the difference between justified belief/fact and opinion, so we can throw that out the water.

Also, I have provided the method, the validity and the scope of the argument, with sources to back myself up.

I'm sorry, it looks like I win.

Once you're quite finished, you're ostentatious blaggard. (See I can use the big words too!)

>>35714997
>Or if you have insurance, no matter your severity, you get short waiting times and higher quality care, without having to sit on a waiting list to see an underpaid member of staff that may go on a Union strike that one day where you need care.
Most Americans can't afford health insurance because greedy Big Pharma influences our national politics, that is the focal point of my argument.
>You could raise 6000 dollars faster than the wait time for a colonoscopy, especially if you have a job, skills, income, investments etc. AKA being an adult.
Majority of Americans do not have that kind of money to drop on a surgery. Roughly 24 Million people do not meet those qualifications.

>>35714114
You've already lost if you view an argument as something to be "won", dumbass.

>>35715041
>Ignoring the rest of my points.
Yep, you suck at arguing. You haven't refuted dick.

>just pointing out that can influence when you will be seen by doctors and treated.
So you believe its right based on geography that your quality of care should differ?
That's not very socialist of you. What happened to equal access?

>If anything, im only being proven right,
No you're not.

>because in America its either you're covered and can have the expensive operation, or youre not and just die.
Which is to some extent true, if you forget about Medicaid etc, which are shambolic institutions anyway. Don't believe me, look up the facts about it. It doesn't prove you right. Again. Why should I have to pay for a complete strangers medical bills?

File: 1489627932466.jpg (44KB, 580x490px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 580x490px

>>35715071
Dude, you're an idiot. Everyone can see you're an idiot, and nothing you can do can change that.

>>35715111
What the fuck?

Is this some kind of riddle?

File: 1486238293360.png (165KB, 353x348px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 353x348px

>>35714114
Honestly it isnt hard.
Whenever i get in an internet argument with say a radical feminist/sjw and they want to bring up stats and ways they are oppressed or what not they use either illegetimate sources that come from either news sources which you cant very well trust especially since they dont use actual college studies or official government sources.
Or they bring their feelings into it.
All you have to do, OP, little guy, is be well read and informed on what you are talking about.
It helps to also not make spelling errors or get emotional.
How you find legittimate news and information?
Well i leave that to you, google is a thing and if anybody would just spend an hour a day fucking reading they wouldnt be ad retarded as you.

>>35715083
>Most Americans can't afford health insurance because greedy Big Pharma influences our national politics, that is the focal point of my argument.
You haven't provided any evidence, so I will dismiss this claim as being unproven.

>Majority of Americans do not have that kind of money to drop on a surgery. Roughly 24 Million people do not meet those qualifications.
Then earn it. Land of opportunity. Get out there and earn it.

>24 million out of ~350 million
Less than 7%. A non issue really.

>>35715306
The objective should be to reach the truth. You should be grateful to someone for proving you wrong.

>>35715022
Argument is the supportive structure behind a claim, you huge faggot.

>You are a homosexual.
That's a claim.

>You are a homosexual because you're attracted to men.
That's an argument.

>You are a homosexual because you're a retarded.
That's an invalid argument. As you can see though, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the possibility of the original claim.

Understand now, brainlet?

>>35715301
>you're an idiot
>if i call names I win

You listened to the silly people in this thread didn't you.

You suck, your argument sucks, you can't provide any sources to back up what you say, therefore nothing you say is valid and should be viewed as such.

You are a poor debater and I recommend bleach as your suicide option.

>>35715363
see
>>35715071


You are very much welcome.

>>35715371
>your argument sucks

What argument, dum dum? We are talking about you not understanding the concept of basic deduction.

>>35715344
>Land of opportunity. Get out there and earn it.

>>35714997
>especially if you have a job, skills, income, investments etc. AKA being an adult

>>35714861
If they spent their money on useful things instead of drugs, and focused on actually providing something to society, they would be able to afford healthcare.


not a debater, just wanting to know a little bit more about your early life. this type of attitude is fascinating to me.

>>35715408
What do you want to know?

>>35715407
>what argument
That is the question, because what you say is so lacking in content, I'm surprised the filter hasn't muted your sorry ass.

>>35715344
Im not the other anon but you make life sound simple man.
Life has complications and people out there are out for you money.
Sometimes even when you ARE covered a doctor will tell you after the fact that your poor person medicaid/medicare is no good because they did a bunch of extra unneeded shit to make money out of your pocket rather than insurence.
I cant tell you how many ive seen poor mexicans in fucking robbed in broad day light by a devious asian dentist or general care MD.
Money is what everyone wants and if you are dependent on them they will use you.
Its a fact of life here in california im not sure about other states.

>>35715293
You lack reading comprehension

>So you believe its right based on geography that your quality of care should differ?
Where did I say I thought it was right? I took that information from the link you provided. DId you even read your source material before you presented to counter my post?
>where is the equal access
Literally every canadian qualifies. There is no age limit. There is no income limit barring you from receding treatement. That is the opposite of what we have in America.
>Which is to some extent true, if you forget about Medicaid etc, which are shambolic institutions anyway. Don't believe me, look up the facts about it. It doesn't prove you right. Again.
Medicaid only covers kids, and elderly. Which make up a small portion of the country. Also, old people are always in the hospital so it would make more sense for Big Pharma to provide them health coverage while doping them up with all kinds of meds.
>Why should I have to pay for a complete strangers medical bills?
Because you are not an individual entity. You pay taxes anyway to more pointless shit, so why is it such a problem to pay only pennies to a universal health plan that covers everyone...?
FYI Americans pay more taxes than other first world country on the fucking planet, but they get nothing in return from the govt that drains them dry.
Even in the UK they don't pay that much taxes for their free health care. You are being fucked and don't even know it.

>>35715444
So you're blaming me for others being so unintelligent as to be extorted?

That is seriously not my problem.

>>35715402
You never posted your sources supporting the idea of argument and claim being synonymous.

>>35715438
I want to know who raised you, if you had any siblings, what type of education you have, what income bracket your parents were in, what kind of school you went to and how your life quality has improved/decreased since then.

File: cVAYXJ0.jpg (100KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x800px

>>35715438
>trying this hard to save face

Oooh what a master of rhetoric.

>>35715485
Mother and Father

2 siblings

Degree and Apprenticeship level

No idea, their financial matters were never of my concern

Public school

Stayed the same.

>>35715467
Im not saying that at all and its obvious you didnt even finsh resding my post.
Im saying thing is black and white cut and dry.
Poeple cheat and people are hurt because of it.
It can happen to you and and it can happen to me, you just seem very naive and narrow minded to think otherwise.

>>35715478
burden of proof is on the accuser. he doesnt need to spoonfeed you moron.
visit /pol/ sometime, you'd be laughed out

>>35715344
Fair enough.
I have yet to provide peer reviewed proof of my claims for the Big Pharma thing but im currently not equipped to do so atm.

>>35715517
>No idea, their financial matters were never of my concern

what kind of neighborhood or house did you live in? did they have nice cars? these will tell you how well off your family is if you're only considering equity.

>>35715542
>I have yet to provide peer reviewed proof of my claims for the Big Pharma thing but im currently not equipped to do so atm.
So you never had an argument.

This is why you lose at arguments. You are unprepared and you don't know what you're talking about, and you make claims which you can't substantiate.

Go back, do your research, and better luck next time.

>>35715567
Rural/Suburban

They had average cars, 5 door, diesel.

>>35715371
>ignore his conclusion because he made one fallacy
lmao ironic
Also ironic you got btfo in a thread like this
Sorry to gang up on you but that' what happens when you are arrogent.

>>35714490
Socialism can't work in the states though. The population is massive compared to Canada and other universal health care countries, and too many people abuse our welfare system as it is.

>>35715591
I ignored a conclusion because it had no evidence or argument to back it up.

Sorry sweetie, either back up your shit or get the fuck out.

File: 1487810741719.jpg (44KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1280x720px

>>35715591
>Arrogent
What the hell is this word anon
You been smokin?

Call your opponent a kike, and call /pol/ for help.

You'll never be BTFO again.

>>35715589
Ok, I'm going to remember all these things and ask the same questions to the next person who shares similar opinions to you. Very American mindset.

>>35715541
claim noun [ C ] (STATEMENT)
a statement that something is true or is a fact, although other people might not believe it

argument noun [ C or U ] (REASON)
a reason or reasons why you support or oppose an idea or suggestion, or the process of explaining these reasons

Sourced from Cambridge Dictionary.

>>35715344
>Then earn it. Land of opportunity. Get out there and earn it.
America is no longer the land of opportunity.
Jobs are scarce, and poverty is high. How do you expect the average person to pay for some 30,000 surgery when that's more than they make in a year?
Meanwhile Canada can give you the same treatment for a fraction of the cost. You can pay it off with a month's earnings there. That's ONE fucking paycheck.
>24 million out of 350 million
According to google there are roughly 318 million people not 350 million....
Also 24 million out of 318 is way more than 7% of the population what are you THICC or something

>>35715613
It is not a conclusion, dum dum. It is you not understanding the difference between a claim and an argument.

>>35714297

This actually makes a lot of sense. If there is anything I know about big pharma it's that they hate making money or selling drugs. If there were free healthcare then big pharma would have a lot more customers, and would make fat gubment dollars, so they lobby against this.

>>35714551
>hurr durr I'm fucking retarded: the post

File: 1483667117400.jpg (38KB, 480x359px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x359px

Here is some advice for all of you.

>>35715624
lel I'm phoneposter trash Im sorry

>>35715453
>Where did I say I thought it was right?
I asked a question. You cannot answer a question with another question.

>Literally every canadian qualifies. There is no age limit. There is no income limit barring you from receding treatement. That is the opposite of what we have in America.
You lack reading comprehension. I am saying "Where is the equal access based on geographical location?". Turns out where you live makes a difference. Again, that's not very socialist or fair.

>Medicaid only covers kids, and elderly. Which make up a small portion of the country. Also, old people are always in the hospital so it would make more sense for Big Pharma to provide them health coverage while doping them up with all kinds of meds.
We've been over you not being able to substantiate your Big Pharma claims.

>Because you are not an individual entity.
Yes I am, I have a name, I have possessions, I am not a registered company. I am an individual.

>You pay taxes anyway to more pointless shit
Your opinion.

>so why is it such a problem to pay only pennies to a universal health plan that covers everyone...?
I should not be responsible for the woes/destinies of others.

>FYI Americans pay more taxes than other first world country on the fucking planet, but they get nothing in return from the govt that drains them dry.
First point true, second point is your opinion.

>Even in the UK they don't pay that much taxes for their free health care.
The NHS is a massive black hole that constantly need more money and runs a huge deficit, as well as being riddled with bureaucracy, red tape, poor standards of care, and overpaid executives.


Do. Your. Research

>>35715575
>So you never had an argument.
Yes I did, read my first post. You however have failed to back up majority of what you said.

>This is why you lose at arguments
Im fairly certain I have won this one atleast.
Shall we have a peer review since you are conceding defeat?
Reply to my post if you think I won our debate

@35715727
I haven't conceded defeat, I have continued to BTFO your shitty socialist argument.

But yeah, lets get some "replies" because faggots on 4chan are so impartial.

>>35715697
Not him but i almost got screwed on my tax returns once.
I finished doing it online and it said i get 1$ back.
I went to my local HR and they said the same thing.
Had to take it to a federal level before i got my 600 dollars from taxes.
Fuckin hacks i tell you.

>>35715697
>I asked a question. You cannot answer a question with another question.
You were asking a question to something that I never said.
>Yes I am, I have a name, I have possessions, I am not a registered company. I am an individual.
You are a citizen yes? You pay taxes yes? Then you are a cog in the machine that is America, therefore you are not merely an individual.
>Your opinion.
Actually, this is fact.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/
Americans on average pay more taxes towards programs and other RND functions that do not benefit them at all.
That includes you, dummy.
Despite paying more, Americans still get shafted in terms of Healthcare. If you really think that's a good deal, then you are a sheep. Keep drinking that fluoridated water.

Yeah I think were done here.
The door's that-a-way.

>>35715727
Neither of you have won. You didn't even have a valid discussion, since you don't share the same premises for the social contract.

@35715876
Thanks for replying to half my posts again.

Stop cherrypicking. I'm fucking smarter than that you dumb nigger.

We are done here.

Kill yourself.

File: tumblr_o6crjzE5hk1v0pigno1_500[1].jpg (45KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 409x409px

>>35715934
Don't worry anon, hopefully you take something from this exchange and learn from your defeat.
ciao'

>>35714396
>In real life, I get btfo alot more because Im not hiding behind a computer or have the luxury google at my fingertips.
The solution is to not argue things you are ignorant about. Pick and choose your battles. I only start arguments when I know I have the objective high ground, so the odds of me getting BTFO is very small.

File: 1456459763115.jpg (112KB, 736x957px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 736x957px

>>35714919

People die, anon. That's just what they do. It's not a bad thing.

>>35715408

Not him but it's a common sentiment among good people. The bible teaches us that if you don't work you don't eat. My father was a pastor and I was homeschooled in Dixie. I believe that personal choice is a big part determinant of our life's outcome. The person who gets meth addiction and ass cancer doesn't necessarily deserve the misfortune. However, they don't deserve treatment just because they got sick either. If they can pay for it then they deserve whatever treatment they want. My family was poor so I know what it's like when finances are tight. I would roll coins just to buy flour so we could make bread. Maybe it was pride but if it's possible to get by without forcibly taking money from others like with food stamps(this was before EBT) then I believe peope should make do. In uni I worked retail and saw the stupid shit people buy with EBT. They are not poor or hurting for money, they are spending frivolously and I resent them for that. I was studying and working, yet my money went to unemployed fatasses who buy things they don't need, like cakes and sodas. Now that's I've graduated and working in a hospital I see that the overwhelming majority of illness is self-inflicted. diabetes, hyperlipidemia, recreational drug overdoses, lung cancer secondary to tobacco use, the list goes on. I should not have to pay for these people's mistakes. I feel bad for them, and I honestly try to tell them to quit being a fuckup and be healthy. I've developed a poker face by now but early on nothing pissed me off more than comparing some fatass diabetics blood sugar log, diet journal, and a1c. Not only do they fuck up their body, they then go back and lie about it, to the very person who they are making other people pay for their treatment. Death is a part of life. At some point you have to allow their wishes to come true. It's not fair to the others who have better uses for their money.

>>35716009
The bible teaches to help the less fortunate. That's literally all Jesus did.

>>35716009
Im pretty sure the bible teaches that you should help your neighbor and be charitable to those in need.
Remember the Good Samaritan?

>>35715727
I'd say you won. All he argued is "lol socialism sucks too" and is right. Both systems suck. It comes down to whether you care about society which he clearly doesn't. He spouts dumb boomer shit like "Get out there and earn it".

>>35716082
No, the other dude won.

>dumb boomer shit like get out and earn it.
you think that things should just be handed to you on a plate? fuck off roody-poo

>>35716127
Just that human rights should be covered when you're placed on earth against your will.
Even drug addicts deserve food and shelter and medicine.

>>35716127
>pay taxes for health coverage
>handed to you on a plate
wew

>>35716224
Human "rights" are subjective.

The US is not a subscriber to the UN's HRC so doesn't apply here.

>>35716275
The UN thinks Internet is a human right so I obviously don't mean that you dumb nigger.

>>35716052

Do you think I don't help the less fortunate? That was a big part of why I chose my career. If I just wanted money I could have taken one of the many many better alternative paths. Healthcare is stable work, but you will earn every penny they pay you. I've become a little more jaded but I care deeply for people.
You start having a hard time empathizing when they don't do what you tell them. Christians believe in personal choice. Give a man fish vs teaching how to fish and that kind of shit. I can handle ignorance. After seeing me they have no excuse.
If you'd actually bother to open the Bible you'd see Jesus did a lot more than just help the less fortunate. He's not the effeminate pinko faggot the churchians try to paint him as.

>>35716066

I know what the fucking good samaritan is. Where do you think the idea for naming the good samaritan laws came from? It's not exactly charitable if the money is taken from you by force and not taking into consideration how the victim of taxation feels. I donate to charities. Think of how much more I could give if I wasn't taxed as much. Then I could distribute my giving the way I see fit and as doing the most good. Amputating the last few toes left on fatty doesn't seem like a good use of my money. Instead of paying for a dumb fatass why not have that money spent on giving food to someone who doesn't have so much food it is literally killing them?

>>35716275
You can't be serious....
If a large portion of your population can't afford decent health coverage to the point where they are actually afraid of going to the hospital because they don't want to go bankrupt then something is very wrong.

>>35716224
Drug addicts aren't denied food, shelter, or healthcare. If they have the money they can get as much of these things as they want. Even if food, shelter, and healthcare are human rights, free money is not. You are arguing for free money, not for addicts being allowed access to food, shelter, and healthcare.

>>35716337
>10.8% is "large"

ummm no
weak should make way for the strong

>>35716337
>be human
>prone to illness
>make sure to live lifestyle not conducive to good health
>make sure to not save or invest any money in case it's needed later
>...
>oh no! am sick! no money to pay for healthcare! how could this happen to someone who lives unhealthily and wastes all their money!?!?

>>35714114
Acerbic wit and smug lolis. Pretend that what you say is objectively true and make sure to be really sarcastic and rude about it.
Also, never address problematic points - always aim to strawman and humiliate. If they latch to a single point, rationalize it into non-existence while being extremely condescending.

File: 450px-Toulmin[1].png (111KB, 450x329px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 450x329px

>>35714114
There is a structure for a rhetorical argument. A debate is the grounds on which you present a rhetorical argument. If you don't actually have any structure behind what you're saying, you are never going to be any more than a retarded voice in the background.

I think a lot of people neglect using backing and qualifiers when they speak to someone with a different idea. Your opponent needs to understand why the distinction you are making is important. Take the issue of immigration for example. The pro-immigration side is charged with convincing the opposition that immigrants are good for society by qualifying their argument with the economy being directly proportional to the good of society. The anti-immigration side claims that bringing in immigrants is bringing in crime and they must back their argument with reasons to believe that the economic benefits do not trump increased crime because an unsafe society cannot be good. You must be able to make points and counter points that directly answer your opposition. If you just try to move on or "work around" your opponent without addressing their points, the only way you will become successful in a debate is through theatrics or virtue signaling.

I think it's important to be able to argue either side of an issue if you want to be a good debater because you'll have some idea of what your opponent will argue. So structure your arguments, practice in front of your dog and be willing to defend your warrants.

>>35714775
Not all fallacies are made equal. The kind of person who fishes for them is generally looking for an out.

>>35716494
Whatever man.
Unexpected shit happens to people all the time beyond their control.
The /fit/est fucker can still get some really nasty disease but not have enough money available to treat it.
I guess its their fault for not being healthy enough though, right?

>>35716764

This is a very good post, good advice.

OP is looking for an objectively 'proper' way to argue and it doesn't exist.

>>35716449
>>35716494
>t. retards that are on their mommy and daddy's health insurance plan and don't have to pay shit

>>35717138
If someone is using fallacious reasoning, you should let him know for his own sake.

>>35717199
Yes it does. It is called logic.

>>35714114
>if you know you can't win, don't fight
>research topics
>understand flaws of your argument
>hold opponent to his own standard
>call out every opponent logical fallacy
>actively use them yourself, but remember to mix them with proper arguments

>>35717257

No it doesn't. You sound like a faggot.

The best way to argue is mix some good points with arrogance and insults. Everyone does that on 4chan, people also do it on sites where you have to register and they get away with it if they are on the proper side of the hivemind of the particular site they are on.

>>35714114
[Spoiler] stop being a cuck [/spoiler]

>>35717190

No.
I think you are being thick on purpose now. You already said he took care of his health in this scenario. If a person takes proper care of their health and gets sick, they did not get sick because they neglected to take good care of their health. Do you understand or should I try dumbing it down some more?

>>35717216

Funny since your entire argument is whining that you should be on daddy gubments health plan.
I do have parents but that doesn't mean they cover my healthcare. Have you even looked at how healthcare works in America? You obviously have no clue what we're talking about.

>>35717829
I disagree. The best way to argue is to be completely rational. The goal is not to make a superficial impression, but to spread your understanding.

No one can fight against truth.

>>35714490

>>implying socialism is bad

stealing is immoral.

stealing is no less immoral just because you have a majority who support it.

>>35718185
Why is stealing immoral, but ownership not immoral? Both are expressions of violence.

>>35718138
>No one can fight against truth.
That's cute. What if I told you that I have an entirely different interpretation of facts? Logic is malleable, egos win debates.
You come in with facts alone, you're going to end up with egg on your face. There are people who will poopoo all over your interpretation of the truth.

>>35718269
What is an interpretation of facts? Unless you discussing if somethig is factual, you need to agree on the facts beforehand.

>>35718244

you can accumulate private ownership of goods through consensual mutual transactions that benefit both parties. stealing by definition is not mutual nor consensual, and is done explicitly to benefit a single party at detriment of another.

>>35718296
>What is an interpretation of facts?
Depends entirely on the argument. You have a conclusion that you can derive from a set of facts, someone else may come to an entirely different conclusion.
Logic doesn't always lead to the same conclusions.

>>35718411
>mutual

There are more than two people here. Why should I accept if Mosha Goldenbergstein and Ben Steinowitzberg decide to agree on each of them owning half the world?
How did the ancestors of Kings gather their ownership? They took it with force and force is the only thing that supports it.

>>35718138

Kill yourself, FAGGOT.

Nobody cares about your fedora tipping "truth" that you peddle to people online because you are so smug because you got spoiled by your parents and you were told you were a special smart person.

I sincerely hope you get cancer and die soon.

>>35718437
>Logic doesn't always lead to the same conclusions.

I don't see how it could not. Can you give an example of this?

>>35718479
Some people do not care about truth, but that doesn't stop me from caring.

By having valid points to begin with.

>>35718520

My biology once gave us an old english poem that each of our groups had to interpret. We had to support it with evidence from the text.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_the_House_That_Jack_Built

Many of us came to similar conclusions, but no one was the same as the other.

>>35718476

>Why should I accept if Mosha Goldenbergstein and Ben Steinowitzberg decide to agree on each of them owning half the world?

What gives you the right to decide how other people spend their legally earned and owned money?

>How did the ancestors of Kings gather their ownership? They took it with force and force is the only thing that supports it.

How they earned it in the past is irrelevant. We can't change that, we can only try to generate prosperity within the confines of the present. If you truly believe taking it by force in the past was immoral, then stealing it from them in the present by force is also immoral according to your own logic. You can't correct the sins of their fathers by committing a sin against them.

Also, taking money from those with the most money creates a negative incentive for those rising up the ranks. Why would I want to make more money if I end up losing more money the more money I make? It would only encourage me to house my money in offshore accounts, essentially removing it from the domestic marketplace, which stifles the economy.

>>35718689
>What gives you the right to decide how other people spend their legally earned and owned money?
>legally

That is the keyword. Taxation is exactly not theft, because taxation is lawful.

>How they earned it in the past is irrelevant.

Legally, yes. Morally, no.

Don't try here. The majority of the site is full of literal underage and they possess the inability to logic or rationale.

>>35718629
I don't get it. What kind of conclusions did you reach from that poem? I think what was different was the assumptions you made.

>>35718138

As much as I want to believe in an objective truth, the majority of others do not. Facts are the surest way to lose an argument.

Without interpretation and drama the other side will happily latch on to the bare canvas of your facts and frame it in a way that supports their side. Think of it this way. If there is an objective truth, it can't be changed. What is gained by enlightening others? Whether or not truth exists, the only thing that can matter is being right. Curiously, while their founding beliefs in nominalism hits us at our weakest point, it also is their weakest point. I began reading up on their tactics and subversice techniques, all that psyops and handbook for radicals shit. Once I got over the sickened anger, I saw it for the beautiful work it is. Most lefties know the techniques, but only at it's most shallow level. You'd think they are too smart for their own tricks. Not knowing the why they won't even recognize you using their own techniques against them, it's like a water is to fish, it's all they know. Play them at their own game and beat them. They may have more experience, but experience does not translate much into skill. A man smart enough to win clean is smart enough to absolutely rape the shit out of someone using dirty techniques. The typical opponent isn't even smart enough to win dirty.

Give it a shot, it's a million times more entertaining being right for the wrong reasons. Don't enlighten them, humiliate them and rub salt in their wounds.

>>35718840
I do not value unintelligent people. I have no interest in swaying a mass of drooling idiots to my side. My goal is not political, but philosophical.

>>35718808
I'll admit, the wiki is misleading. It was an iteration of that poem I am sure.
Basically, we were to determine who the farmer married. The lady forlorn, the girl he kissed, the priest? It was worded in a way that it ended up being interpreted differently depending on how you read it. Most of the groups eliminated the priest as an option, because he is a holy man - and this was published in 1755.

You got somewhat different answers from different groups, all were logical statements supported by the text. Logic lead them to different conclusions and there was no solid answer.

>>35718476
>>35718689

Reminds of pic related.
About the king shit, it's just another form of government, it's not like monarchy is an evil dictatorship. Kings are benevolent and take care of the citizens. It's based on the belief that too many cooks ruin the soup. Blood is strong, but it's not strong enough to defend against angry citizens. The king always has his people's best interests in mind, because if he doesn't it's off to the guillotine. Even the best king has a long list of enemies inside the walls.

People are not equal. When I visit my doctor I don't bring my buddies who are plumbers, drug addicts, chefs, and horticulturists to hold a congress and vote on the decisions the physician makes. Same shit with the king. He protects me from foreign invaders and the economy of the country with laws concerning industry.

I guess what I'm saying is it's just way to cumbersome a metaphor to compare owning a pair of shoes to leading a country. Whether or not it leads to justification of theft or not, I can't even see the point of the comparison. I certainly won't be able to see any conclusions reached from it.

>>35719063
So it was the assumptions that differed. The assumptions are what you need to agree on beforehand to have a rational discussion.

>>35718923

The bigger they are the harder they fall. Don't exclusively target the unintelligent. Go for the smart wrong people too. They dumb ones look up to him, and they tend to have a bigger ego. My pleasure has a correlation of 1 to the pain my words cause. Whether I make them question their own beliefs or make them look like a jackass in front of everyone it's all the same to me. I just want to collect hurt and (you)s.

>>35718126
You are forgetting to mention how are they going to pay for treatment when they are broke, jackass

File: the-myth-of-consensual-sex-i-dont-consent-consent-isnt-2583968.png (134KB, 500x535px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 500x535px

>>35718476
>>35718689
>>35719072

I guess pic related works better when the pic is attached.

>>35719096
>The assumptions are what you need to agree on beforehand to have a rational discussion.

So do you only talk to people who agree with you? That doesn't sound like a debate.

>>35719137
>Whether I make them question their own beliefs or make them look like a jackass in front of everyone it's all the same to me.

It is not the same to me.

>>35719157
It is not really the same though. The same would be if all 3 were stranded on an island and the two of them decided they owned the island and Elliot had to work for them to pay rent.

>>35719177
If you are discussing who commited a murder, and someone comes along saying that no murder was commited and the victim is still alive, the subject of the debate changes from who killed the guy to whether a murder took place.

In order to discuss who commited a murder you must agree that a murder took place.

>>35714114
by having the right opinions.

>>35719156

They aren't going to pay. That's the entire point, faggot.

If they weren't broke though, that's a completely different story. Proceeding to the moral of that story, don't be broke.

It sounds really hard, not spending as much or more than you make. The concept is hard enough, putting it to practice is unthinkable. "Live within your means". Has a more loathsome phrase ever been uttered?

That said, why should I pay the money I set aside for myself to cover someone who is so stupid they don't even understand that money is nice to have for when you need money? I'd almost be fine if only the people who can't afford their own medical bills were made to pay for each other's medical costs. It's too hard to sort those people out though. Realistically this would mean tax brackets, and I hate that. I want a flat sales tax, at an equal rate no matter the item or price. That way you don't have bullshit sin taxes or luxury taxes. Taxes are punitive no matter how you look at it. Punish consumption, not creation.Some people are even taxed twice on the same dollar, like with capital gains.

>>35716801
>practice in front of your dog
This really made me laugh. Good post, though.

>>35714114
It doesn't matter what you say...
What matters is the how!

>>35719288
>In order to discuss who commited a murder you must agree that a murder took place.

Right. And if I were a defense attorney, I could muddy the waters like a complete shitbird, perhaps to the point where the murderer gets off scot-free regardless.

File: 2042609-phoenix_wright.jpg (59KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x320px

>>35719497
If the prosecution was incompetent.

File: 1489156375743-r9k.gif (894KB, 480x256px) Image search: [Google]

894KB, 480x256px

>>35714196
>tfw my name is actually Joe

File: SidWoodyUnderGlass.png (456KB, 640x460px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 640x460px

>>35719179

The truth is still the truth right? If they can't be convinced you simply walk away with your head held up high? It sounds very noble, but I don't see the point. I'll help a guy out, but if he is no use as an ally he can at least be of use as a plaything.

>>35719609
I do not see the point of playing with people.

File: chihuahua2.jpg (10KB, 269x285px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 269x285px

>>35714114

I just don't get into real life debates. Even if I have a good rebuttal to what they said, I won't say a word or just give "well, I don't know" type answers.

File: SLAYER.jpg (13KB, 220x262px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x262px

>>35719177
Of course arguments from induction can sometimes lead to different conclusions. The other poster was correct in identifying that these kinds of "assumptions" define how the logic takes shape. Frankly, most debates completely fail to surpass this level -- I've seen many where it all just amounts to disagreement on what exactly the facts are. Pure refutation of the central point rarely occurs.

But he's also right that there are things that must be agreed upon or conceded for some discussions to even be possible. You're not going to get very far if you're arguing with a friend over breaking his TV and pic related comes in shouting CAUSALITY DOESN'T EXIST HOW DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE TV IS REALLY THERE ANYWAY PLUS FREE WILL IS A POST-HOC DELUSION HE DINDU NUFFIN

>>35719202

So three people are stranded on an island. Obviously survival would be much more difficult than it is now. Why is it more difficult? There are not as many services and resources available. I'm sure they would eventually come to a division of labor, owing to aptitudes, interests, and abilities. If one man is badass at building gilligan's island tiki huts, another good at acquring dank meats/fruits/vegetables, and another good at putting together spider tier fibers it only makes sense that some kind of exchange would take place. Elliot could built his own shit house to enjoy his fine jungle juice in, or he could share it and everyone gets drunk together in in addition to him getting a nonshit house. Rent is a poor choice of word here, but I guess it works. It's not like it's made of diamond. Tiki houses are not forever. In exchange for the consumable jungle juice, the other party will give consumable reinforcement to whatever breaks in the house he rented.

Once they are better established they could exchange abstract forms of debt. Maybe a shell with IOUt.chad on it. If Elliot doesn't need any housy shit but Chad needs drunk the IOU could be traded. Conversely, when Stacy doesn't need drunk but Elliot needs a new pair of designer coconut chanel pants he could pay with a shell engraved with IOUt.Elliot.

>>35719885
>Elliot could built his own shit house to enjoy his fine jungle juice in

That's the problem though. Stacy and Chad have agreed that they are the lawful owners of the entire island, so Elliot has to work for them to earn enough coconuts to pay rent for the treehouse they allowed him to build on their land.

File: poop.jpg (86KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1920x1080px

>>35719664

Fair enough, but I'm with Yui on this one.

Gotta' stop and smell the roses. Life is a bitch and then you die.

File: 15a.jpg (36KB, 640x345px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x345px

>>35720213
That is originally how it is for you.

>>35719948

What do they base their lawful ownership on? Elliot could contest this and carve out his own land. Worst case scenario he declares war and invades their territory. Then Chad and Stacy either defend their nation, ignore it being content that their newfound island state does not have squatter's rights leading to ownership, or they surrender and property ownership is transferred to the state of Elliot during peace negotiations. From what I know of Elliot he wouldn't be content in the scenario you describe. It seems more likely that things would go realistically.

>>35720356
>What do they base their lawful ownership on?

They decided it was a democracy and took a vote. Chad was elected President and Stacy head of congress. Then they used their power to give themselves lucrative trade deals untill they had enough coconuts to buy the whole island. Elliot tried to protest, but was put on a terrorist watchlist. Elliot then said the whole thing was stupid and Chad had to physically restrain him to maintain the rule of law.

>>35714114
research your arguments AND THEIRS so you know exactly what they will say and how to counter it.

also don't be a cuck

File: 1458675321838.jpg (506KB, 1200x1045px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1200x1045px

>>35719882
>Frankly, most debates completely fail to surpass this level -- I've seen many where it all just amounts to disagreement on what exactly the facts are. Pure refutation of the central point rarely occurs.

That is more or less what I had meant, I was lost in what was meant by "assumption". Though I would argue that presentation tends to win favor when it comes to "assumptions", regardless of which is more factually accurate. If someone is out to make an ass out of you, and they're good at it, it literally will not matter if what you have to say is correct or not.
>You're not going to get very far if you're arguing with a friend over breaking his TV and pic related comes in shouting CAUSALITY DOESN'T EXIST HOW DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE TV IS REALLY THERE ANYWAY PLUS FREE WILL IS A POST-HOC DELUSION HE DINDU NUFFIN

I like this and it needs to be a meme.

>>35714114
stop watching netflix. start watching documentaries on youtube. learn every angle and learn how to think like your enemy. be able to switch mid debate and pitch for the other team.

Short answer: Have a relatively high IQ (120+), don't debate things you know nothing about, learn to identify sophist trickery and call people out on it. Always tell the truth.

You can't do this because you don't have a high IQ, don't know anything at all, don't want to put in the effort to learn how to identify all this stuff, and telling the truth will conflict with your beliefs.

>>35720428

Who did they buy the island from? I thought it's just the three of them.

>>35720902
>wnt2beesmart?
>don't watch netflix
>watch youtube instead xd

>>35721278
They bought it from the state which sadly was going bankrupt and needed financial assistance.

>>35718584

You sound like a monumental faggot. Original.

>>35721449
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

read up, boy.

File: 2dktg9.png (362KB, 586x373px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 586x373px

>>35721478

>Any insult that I get on the internet is projection since I still believe my parents when they told me how special I was

Kill yourself, faggot.

File: 1487226228768.gif (325KB, 370x330px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 370x330px

>>35721698
"You sound like a faggot" = "You have reminded me of a part of myself I do not like".

It is impossible for you to insult me. I have achieved individualization and no longer resents anyone.

>>35714114
By not being wrong.

File: 4a7.jpg (24KB, 390x285px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 390x285px

>>35721753

No, you just sound like a faggot. Very simple. It's not projection, anon. You're just a faggot. You sound like a gay faggot who still believes the lies your parents told you about how unique you are.

Please kill yourself. You have no arguments either.

>>35714114
Part 1
I started writing a lengthy post, but my fucking computer crashed.
Anyway, it's late here so I'll exaggerate a bit and I'll be a little bare-bones. This post represents a part of my own subjective opinion with extreme compression.

You can basically do two kind of things or a combination, but try to do one which is more natural to you.

First, don't believe the stupid fucking alpha, etc. shit stereotypes on the net. They have some truth to them, but most people over-complicate it then they want to categorize everything. Actual social dynamics and (real) psychology is way more important. I'll however refer to those super social "big guys" as Alphas so you can easily associate, other than that let's drop the shit.

The two ways: loner(-ish) way and the more social manipulator/warrior/stereotypical "alpha" (call it whatever you want) way. I'll call this the social-way. Later on that.

Loner way:
Stick to facts and don't let them move the goalpost or put emotion/feelings into the convo (conversation).
Simply tell them facts and ask them whether they want to answer the actual question.
Disregard the bullshitters. You can essentially tell them something like "I thought this was a mature conversation based on facts and clearly subjective parts of the conversation being respected.". Do this, but in a shorter form. You can also tell them that "This aren't worth my time." or even better "This is wasting time." This could be added to the previous part, but personally I think it's better than the previous one. After this just walk away or just simply walk away.
This is more effective when your actual appearance reflects this: you don't go into these kind of conversations and you don't give a shit about them. Essentially suggest that your partner should have something to say instead of you having the burden to prove yourself to your partner, never do that.

>>35721856
Yes, it is a very classic example of projection. My behavior annoys you, because of a mental split within you.

You see, sounding like a faggot is entirely subjective, so to explain why it is I have such a strong effect on you specifically, we have to invoke the principle of projection.

>>35714114
Maybe you're just not smart enough to counter their arguments anon. At the end of the day, arguments and debates are pointless. Either side can go on forever about why their opinions and beliefs are superior compared to the opposition. No one actually wins.

If you're talking about debates over fact vs. opinion or fact vs. theory, you can always just waste your time researching, regurgitating statistics, and whatever.

>>35722058
Occam's razor, dude. Either you sound like a faggot and he shared the observation, or you're such a faggot you turn him gay and then he is so unhappy with being gay he projects his gayness onto you making you a double faggot. I'm going with the simpler explanation.

>>35722168
To say someone sounds like a faggot is just an expression of annoyance, it is not a description of an objective quality.

Objectively one cannot sound like a faggot, because the definition of homosexuality does not have anything to do with how you sound.

>>35714114
Think of their argument first, then create your own argument. It subconsciously allows you to have at the least a slightly better argument. That is of course if you look into the contrasting viewpoint of the topic you are arguing of course.

>>35714114
>>35722013
Part 2

An example regarding the later is this: when they look like they are to start bullshitting any minute then start smiling and smile even harder when they're actually bullshitting in a way like you would at a child doing silly things/being stupid.
Anyway the point is don't overdo it and don't actually argue. Simply present yourself in a way that you don't get shaken by someone having a differing opinion and be a little cocky if there is no sufficient evidence or if it's a subjective matter. With subjective matters don't ever tell someone else that he is right. It's subjective there is no right.
Terminate the convo quite quick if they start to bullshit(=insult you, moving the goalpost) in whatever way you want to do it, but don't follow them into a fucking maze of not actually talking about the point.

This is actually more like life advice. Always converse in way which is within your boundaries. If they try to fuck with you and go beyond your boundaries then simply represent your boundaries with strength and/or end it right there. Hell, you can even say simply "Thanks." with a smile and walk away.

Don't get emotional or give a shit. This is more a bout personal development than winning a conversation, however essentially this way you win it, because they can't fuck with you. They enjoy their stupid emotional play and they don't actually prove a proper point. Realize this.

>Online argument
>Can think of hundreds of different argument yo my opinion, quote studies and videos, and completely deconstruct the opposing argument in a couple minutes

>Spoken, IRL argument
>Uh uh uh uh b-b-b-but okie d-doke

WHY THE FUCK IS SPEAKING SO HARD IT'S NOT FAIR

>>35714114
>>35722302
Part 3

"This is wasting time." <--- Regarding this: just be impersonal, don't directly insult them. Try to tell him/her/them this in a way like it's impersonal like generally this behavior is nonsense and as such it doesn't worth your time and disregard stupid shit.
If they tell you something like "Since I said it you're telling me I'm a waste of time." you can respond by either for example smiling and walking away or if you want to get a bit personal then you can simply tell him something like this "Yes, you behave that way, you look like someone who can carry a proper convo, but not this time it seems.". If you go for (something like) this then do it in a way (act like it) which suggests that he has to prove it to you that he is capable of a (serious) conversation and not you, because you know that you ARE. It's about representing your own standards/values without fear and with confidence. Body language matters. Again don't overdo it and don't stop to argue, just throw it in like a finishing touch without caring for the consequence from their (subjective) viewpoint. Because it's all subjective.

Believe it or not people will "respect" this kind of "cool" loner because you don't do it to be cool, you don't do it be an asshole.
You are like this because you do your own thing so you can get better and get ahead and you don't even care for things which are out of your boundaries more than you need to.
I put respect in "" because they can easily fear you. For your typical "I'm right because I say so and I'm handsome with the cool friends." types this is a killing blow so you can easily become someone who is hated by some and loved by some.

While it seems like you won't get alongside as good with people or chicks as the more social types it's actually not true. You won't be much "worse" off than them and most likely the people you'll be talking with will be worthy of your time.

>>35714114
>>35722604
Part 4

Yes, this loner stuff is somewhat better suited for people who know their shit well and (good) in something.

Still, even if you're only average representing average without being insecure about it and actually going on with your own shit instead of arguing with others about nothing which gives you no benefit is very good.
It gives you more or less the same shit despite being average, because you do have something most average people don't have that's why they use friends for example to argue: inner strength and confidence.
These qualities can be built.

You also don't need to go full lonerish. You can be very sociable with the right kind of people and clearly tell people to fuck off who don't respect you for who you are. I know it's cliche to say it this way, but that's the easiest way to say this. So again it's more of a life advice.

Improve your self-confidence and respect for yourself and try to do this, maintain it regardless of external factors. This is the largest gain anyone can attain.

As a I said before you can start with a more rude, lonerish personality and try to open up when you can, but when bullshitting comes then clearly represent yourself with the same brute strength (not the physical kind if you can help it).
If you show (or need to show) emotion for some reason then be strong about it and acknowledge it. If you need to then outright tell anyone who questions it that it's healthy for a human being and it only makes you stronger and more versatilely to be able to operate on such a wide range.

Again this is more of a life advice, because you honestly can't always win every argument and if it's your goal in life to do that then you probably do something very wrong most of the time.

File: birb sip.jpg (56KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x400px

>>35714234
Having a good viewpoint or being right in a debate is not enough to win. A person who is completely wrong about something can sound more convincing than a person who is right. In a debate it's not enough to be right, you have to be able to convey your viewpoint and arguments well too.

probably being able to recognise when someone is giving you a flawed premise/argument.

then knowing to correctly verbalise what it is they're doing.

keeping people on track is also important, not allowing them to veer into side topics. likewise, keeping people from chaining like 15 points in a row together without letting you address any of them.

this is for actual arguments in real life, not when you've got 15 minutes to craft a reply and get sources.

>>35714114
>>35722820

The social way:
This is what the social "Alphas" do when someone says they got BTFOd by them.

When you want to socially "win" an argument that has nothing to do with facts. It's about manipulation, it's about your effect on others.
Don't react to facts, react to emotions. It's about how people emotionally experience the opinion of others about them, what they say and supposed facts.
If you present it well enough anything can be perceived as fact, especially by an emotional audience and if you do it charismatically and in a way that you seems like you know about it (you look like, act like an authority figure on the subject).

So when you converse in actual reality try to manipulate the emotions. If you're smart about it then you only use facts as a disguise and you twist it.

Very crude example:
Guy1: "I think smokers should get proper health-care just like everyone else."
Guy2: "Well, no, they obviously create the situation for themselves and look at all those 40+ smoking bitches, they are barely alive. They don't even look fuckable anymore by any standard."
Guy1: "That's not true at all, for example my mom is a smoker and she's in a nice relationship with my dad."
Guy2: "Hahaha, I feel sorry for Guy1's dad!"
Guy3: "Your dad must be the biggest beta on earth."
Guy1: "That's not what I was talking about, guys! That's not true at all. I was just giving an example!"
Guy2: "Sure thing, buddy. See that's what a smoking mom does to a kid! Hahaha!"

Anyway Guy2 knew that Guy1's mom is an average looking smoking women that's why he said it like that or he guessed well. Guy1 fell for the bait.
Also, realize that the conversation is neither about healthcare or about smokers. It's about looking Alpha and winning an argument. Assisted by herd mentality (guy3).

You need to do this if you want to win *SHITTY* arguments. You respond to emotion, you create emotion and you control it by responding and creating. Use this cycle.

>>35723151
Do not stoop to the level of stupid people.

>>35714114
>>35723151

Part 6, forgot to "tag" Part 5. LAST PART.

This why most of these got BTFOd arguments are shit and they're mostly good in a more subtle way for business meetings and for convincing retards for their own good.

That's why you don't engage in them and that's why the lonerish type guy can be so feared and/or respected because he doesn't give a shit about this kind of thing.

Being sociable isn't equal to trying to win shitty arguments in a shitty way. Use that time to improve yourself and I would recommend starting with the loner approach. It fits most real people better.

Argue mercilessly only when it fits actually something worthwhile and where it's expected like business meetings with retarded clients.
I wouldn't do it for the sake of doing it and I guess most people wouldn't either.

Last advice: think before you talk and lose the shitty friends.
For example generally don't talk about politics and shit like that. While it's good to, almost essential, to know what's happening in the world your shitty convo about your ideals won't change anything other than allow others an attack surface they can use to discriminate.
"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - This is true in the way that it will wreck your world if you don't know about it when the shit hits the fan., but you most likely won't change it. Many things in life converge toward the overall average.
So weight things and apply this logic before you talk about useless topics and you tell it to the wrong kind of people.

Sorry for the many typos, it's late and I'm tired.

>>35723281
Yes, that's my point. However emotional manipulation is sometimes necessary and it's used in police operations, meetings, etc. and even if you don't want to do it, it's part of life so you need to know how to deal with it at least on a basic level.
We just shouldn't forget that sometimes finding another way is a whole lot fucking better.

File: me.png (175KB, 250x321px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 250x321px

>>35723281

I think he makes some good points. Normalfags and stupid people can't understand our autismo diligence and rightness, so we have no choice but to stoop to their level or be 'wrong'.

Read more, OP. The more you read, the better your vocabulary gets. Know the topic you are discussing inside and out, and make sure you know both sides.

Know logical fallacies and how to spot them, and how to twist your opponents words back on them.

Debating, just like any skill, takes practice. Lots and lots of practice.

I've found that understanding both sides helps.

>>35724473
Wanted to add, if you need to, take a few seconds to quickly formulate your thoughts in your head so you can say them better.

>>35714114
read the greeks, especially socrates and plato