Reddit reviews How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument
We found 29 Reddit comments about How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
This is the title of a book he wrote.
This is actually true. Liberals have decreased brain volume in the right amygdala.^1 They have lesser brain function in the prefrontal cortex that suggests many of them may have hypofrontality, which is what causes laziness. Conservative score higher in conscientiousness/work-ethic. Liberals have a poor understanding of what is harmful due to their lack of brain development. This is partially what causes them to be score highest in criminality.^2
Social liberals in particular (social justice-types) tend to have too much empathy such that they are incapable of rationalizing their way to their own morality.^3 Instead, whoever victimizes themselves is the most moral to them.^4 If you disagree with them, it is such that "you are immoral" and they result to insult and make character assassinations. It is a fact that too much empathy leads to immorality.^5
A good way to fight this is to engage in moral arguments with them and prove them to be immoral instead of having cause-and-effect arguments which the right prefers to have.^6
[1] Brain structure
[2] Liberal criminality
[3] Liberal vs. Conservative on empathy & morality
[4] PC Police and Social Attitudes
[5] Too much empathy leads to immoral and irrational behavior
[6] Debating leftists
The recommended section is just a treasure trove of amazing garbage:
Ben Shapiro
Mike Thernovich
Vox Day
This dumbass
The_Alinsky_fearer has logged on
Trump as a soviet worker
Sharia law is coming to your chipolte
The adventures of Hitler
Scott Adams: Failing is actually success
He created this himself, this is the book he wrote:
>Amazon: Ben Shapiro: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument
​
And here: Youtube: Shapiro's only reason to debate the left voluntarily (timestamped)
Other than being forced to or for the unlikely chance that you've found the only honest leftist in America, here is the only reason Shapiro can find to debate someone on the left:
>Shapiro: The only other reason you should ever have a conversation with anyone on the left, is if your are in public in front of a large audience and then your goal is to humiliate them as badly as possible. That is the goal of the conversation.
Ben Shapiro literally admits that he argues in bad faith. He wrote a book about it https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2
This piece of shit should never be given a platform ever again to spew his dogshit opinions, because that's all they are. Anyone that unironically listens to Ben was probably a massive loser in school.
Krasnik er en idiot. Jeg havde også højere forventninger til ham. Det giver ingen mening at kalde ham nazist. Folk kan jo godt se Paludan ikke er nazist. Han er fascist og det er ikke svært at bevise. Men det kræver at man faktisk kan levere blot nogle argumenter for hvorfor. Han har ret ift. Paludans ønske om en etnisk udrensning, men ikke én eneste gang formår Krasnik at komme Paludan i møde. Paludan afviser alt der bliver påstået om ham. Endda når der tages udgangspunkt i hans egne citater. Det er ekstremt forudsigeligt. Når Krasnik ikke formår at opponere mod Paludans tomme afvisninger og ad hominem så står det sløjt til. Jeg tror at Krasnik er blevet forvænt til jobbet som chefredaktør. Han møder ikke på samme måde tosser face-to-face som interviewer længere og den der "jeg-er-så-rystet-over-Stram-Kurs"-mimik kan han godt pakke væk. Den vinder ikke en debat mod en fyr som Paludan. Han debattere fuldstændigt som eksempelvis Ben Shapiro foreslår at man skal gøre det. Ekstremt uærligt og effektivt.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/03/20/11-rules-for-debating-a-leftist-from-ben-shapiro
https://www.amazon.com/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2
Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgenderism And Pro-Abortion Arguments
This video was uploaded on the Daily Wire channel, the organization founded and headed by Shapiro.
And here's a book by Shapiro titled "How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument".
I got you fam with this you will be able to argue against every libtard.
>By the way the only one of those categories that is a challenge to capitalism is the bleeding heart liberal.
​
Fact. The real threats to capitalism are the bleeding heart liberals, such as comrade Bono, Robert "Red scare" Redford, and Paul "little Gulag" Mcartney.
​
>The far left will get her hair dye at Walmart or Amazon
​
I recognize this rhetorical rapier well. You must be a pupil of the Shapiro method of Leftist Destruction, unquestionably. Former practitioner of the art, I am. I once found myself debating a female and I was like listen you tainted whore, you claim you are a leftist, and yet I see you are wearing shoes that where made by CAPITALISM. Heroic victory.
His books look pretty reactionary to me.
How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them:
Among Shapiro’s rules for beating the left in confrontations are:
There are eight more rules that will allow a conservative to debate a leftist and destroy him. How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them is not just a “how to” book. It is a survival manual.
have you considered
Kiedy Ben Shapiro wejdzie za mocno, Ty tu z 4 jego zasady wcisnąłeś naraz :D
> homofobem, nazistą, rasistą, faszystą, antysemitą, transfobem, ableistą, fatshamerem, catcallerem, szowinistą, mizoginem, incelem
>te pojęcia są raczej puste w treści
Słownik polecam.
BTW. Nie powiedziałem nic o nazistach? Ale rozumiem że Honkler nie ma z nimi nic wspólnego.
> jesteś przestępcą i nie powinieneś mieć prawa wypowiedzi
FREEZE PEACH
>No, it isn't disingenuous, and it is a similar thing.
You think moose and people are as different as men and women?
>There are people riding this wave, calling themselves something other than human.
Trans people still call themselves human.
>Calling yourself something other than what you are is, what it is.
The majority of scientific evidence indicates that it is more complicated than "penis=man", but I wouldn't expect Shapiro to be familiar with that research given that he dismisses psychology, sociology, and the aspects of other sciences he disagrees with (like climate change, which he denies frequently).
>Whether you call yourself a woman, when you're biologically a man, or you call yourself a moose, like he said.
It's really weird that you think those two are the same
>She said she thought that the Boy Scouts should allow girls who call themselves boys in.
Trans boys, yes. And the Scouts agreed with her.
>If I call myself something, it doesn't make it so.
Correct.
>She didn't know what she was talking about, by the way, and he did engage her argument. Her argument was that the Boy Scouts should allow females in, he said the Boy Scouts have a standard, you have to be a biological boy to be a Boy Scout. That's him addressing her argument.
Right, and then when she tried to address that point and counter it, he cut her off.
>What would that book be?
This one.
>Apart from some hyperbole, there's nothing wrong with that article.
Hyperbole is a very generous interpretation of that article, in my opinion.
>The left in general seem to want to replace god with government.
You keep thinking that.
>Compulsion, is fascism...
No, it isn't. Compulsion is not automatically fascism, unless you think having laws that are enforced by police are automatically fascism.
>I don't think YOU know what fascism is...
I know what fascism is. I've read quite a bit on the subject. I'm not an expert or anything, but I'm inclined to agree with Robert Paxton, who states that fascism is:
>"a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion"
Which sounds a lot more like Trump than Obama, and it certainly sounds nothing like anything Ben Shapiro was talking about.
>but the third most certainly is. Being fired for free speech, in order to silence someone.
James Demore wasn't fired for exercising free speech, he was fired because he wrote an essay saying that women were biologically worse at computer science despite no evidence to back it up. Google is a private company, and they are totally within their rights to fire someone who says that a massive portion of their workforce is biologically incompetent.
>I didn't say anything about him not supporting Trump. But just so you're clear, he didn't support or vote for Donald Trump, until he saw all the good things he's doing.
Well I'll hold my breath until Trump does more than maybe 1 or 2 good things (the space force is a good idea).
>I don't worship at his feet, just clearing up some lies and misinformation, you seemed to be spreading. Maybe you were doing it unknowingly, but I still had to set the record straight.
Good job on that.
>Again, he doesn't engage disingenuously and doesn't use "arguments designed to "own" liberals". He does debate people. I suggest you watch one of his debates and actually listen.
I've listened to his debates and read some of his books. I'm still not impressed, and stand by what I've said.
Ben Shapiro is an ideologue. He doesn't desire progress; he's a professional agitator.
See, e.g.: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them
I'm open to ideas from all sides of the aisle that are based in reality and solve problems. He's a rabblerouser and ideologue with no genuine interest in advancing the cause of the human race. But I'll defend his right to speak as much as anyone else because that's one of the - if not the most - important foundations of our nation.
This book he wrote: https://www.amazon.com/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2
> Kiedy Ben Shapiro wejdzie za mocno
Niezbyt mnie ułomek Shapiro interesuje, znasz się widocznie lepiej na nim niż ja.
>Słownik polecam.
Ok, to na podstawie słownikowej definicji wyjaśnij dlaczego nazwałeś ten materiał faszystowskim xD Zresztą obawiam się że większości tych wydumanych pojęć nie znajdę w konwencjonalnej encyklopedii.
> Nie powiedziałem nic o nazistach?
powiedziałeś o faszystach, nie wiem czy to dla ciebie aż tak wielka różnica.
>FREEZE PEACH
Zaraz, czyli linijka pod tym, że nie mówiłeś nic o nazistach porównujesz mnie do nazistów? To dobre :D
> IDW
> engage in good faith discourse with intellectual humility, academic rigor and charitable attitudes towards others’ views
You mean this good faith discourse?
https://www.amazon.com/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2/ref=nodl_
You mean these charitable attitudes?
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/6blyyy/what_do_you_guys_think_about_dave_rubins_recent/?st=JSNIV0KT&sh=8d1760d7
I’m unsure why if you’re actually interested in the above you’d want to hitch your wagon to IDW.
They’re a fairly homogenous group who pontificate about subjects which, by virtue of their positions in life, are rarely exposed to the reality of their subject matter. They have easy conversations about difficult subjects amongst themselves. They’re an echo chamber in leather chairs.
The only thing new IDW has brought to the table is their unironic self-congratulatory way they have conversations about having conversations.
Sorry to shit on your thread. Maybe go down the Hitchens route and find a good debating club.
"How to debates leftists and destroy them" written by Ben Shapiro.
Additionally, the two YouTube videos that Neil referenced were published on the Daily Wire's YouTube page, a publication that Benjamin is editor-in-chief to. Presumably he has editorial control over the titles of things posted there.
This is actually true. Liberals have decreased brain volume in the right amygdala.^1 They have lesser brain function in the prefrontal cortex that suggests many of them may have hypofrontality, which is what causes laziness. Conservatives score higher in conscientiousness/work-ethic. Liberals have a poor understanding of what is harmful due to their lack of brain development. This is partially what causes them to be score highest in criminality.^2
Social liberals in particular (social justice-types) tend to have too much empathy such that they are incapable of rationalizing their way to their own morality.^3 Instead, whoever victimizes themselves is the most moral to them.^4 If you disagree with them, it is such that "you are immoral" and they result to insult and make character assassinations. It is a fact that too much empathy leads to immorality.^5
A good way to fight this is to engage in moral arguments with them and prove them to be immoral instead of having cause-and-effect arguments which the right prefers to have.^6
[1] Brain structure
[2] Liberal criminality
[3] Liberal vs. Conservative on empathy & morality
[4] PC Police and Social Attitudes
[5] Too much empathy leads to immoral and irrational behavior
[6] Debating leftists
Why take a class when you can just read this book lol
>I thought I was having a discussion with you.
You are, and I'm happy for it, but the way those two posts contradicted each other reminded me of the way people arguing for the sake of the crowd argue, and if this was going to be that sort of conversation there'd be no point continuing it on a dead post.
Since you want to keep talking, I'll confess that my argument's kind of a niggle. There's plenty of reasons why a female president would be a good thing. There's that story from the Lean In introduction about the first female executive at Google having to walk all the way across the lot while pregnant, and that being the reason they put in parking for pregnant employees, with the argument being that you need diversity at the top because some problems are only apparent to the people who have to actually suffer from them. There's the fact that if it actually happened it would mean that sexism has less of a hold on this country than it used to. There's the argument you made about Margaret Thatcher, that having a woman occupy the highest office in the land would give little girls and boys powerful women to look up to in heir history books. All things being equal, a female president would be better than a male president.
That said, you're arguing that even if things aren't equal a female president would be best, and not just best, but most progressive, and from the arguments you've made you seem to want this for purely symbolic reasons. I hope you're exaggerating when you say you'd vote for Anne Coulter, but even if you are it seems to only be a matter of degree. There are pragmatic reasons to want a woman president, but "the US is slowly falling down the list" is not one of them. America isn't sexist because it hasn't had any female presidents, America hasn't had any female presidents because it's sexist. Installing a female president without diminishing sexism is like changing the definition of unemployment and then claiming to have lowered the unemployment rates. The symbol is not the thing.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505250688&sr=1-9&keywords=ben+shapiro
How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument
Shen Bapiro wrote a book called How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them. Yeah, I think it's safe to assume he does name those
>I agree, I'm just saying that there was a very easy and reasonable answer he could have given.
This is the name of his Amazon book, How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument. He doesn't just like them, he personally endorses them. Any reasonable response claiming he doesn't like them would be a flat out lie, and that's why he never claimed to dislike them.
he also sells a book with a pretty revealing title about how he doesn't know dick about arguing in good faith. Or what leftists are, for that matter.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2/ref=sr_1_4?crid=X4SANCAQ9YY5&keywords=ben+shapiro+how+to+debate+leftist+and+destroy+them&qid=1563553852&s=gateway&sprefix=ben+shapiro+how%2Caps%2C172&sr=8-4
If you're Ben's fan and consider yourself to be a "centrist" or mostly unbiased esp after this interview then you're at very high possibility an extremist.
​
What Ben displayed here was his and his fan's general habit of self-victimization, in an continuous attempt at normalizing fringe political views that have overlaps with even more extremist ideologies like white/"westernized" nationalism, religious extremism at the very least.
​
He accurately called SOME of the conservative polices (anti abortion laws) extremist and barbaric. If they had discussed economics or global warming they'd probably agree on everything and the interview would've been just like 99% of appearances on Fox news or probably even CNN on certain times. (imagine setting the bar that low..oh wait).
​
Even if you disagree with the above. Consider that Ben was EXTREMELY dishonest about the question on the political discourse topic when he does this often https://www.amazon.com/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2 . (im ignoring his anti arab tweets and other crazy nonsense here). Everyone with a clear brain would think twice before calling him a "centrist" or expert at anything outside selling his "image" and brand.