to clarify: I'm NOT encouraging the use of fallacies, or suggesting that truth doesn't matter, I just wanted to make a video on tactics that, like it or not, occur all the time in arguments and debate. Enjoy, and if you have your own favorite fallacy or rhetorical trick that I didn't cover, comment and tell me what it is!
Your video reminds me of Aristotle's "Rhetoric." It seems like he promotes using dirty tactics, but it's probably more a work that teaches readers self-defense against strategies like these.
András Fogarasi Premise 1: There's cheese. Premise 2: Cheese has holes. Premise 3: With more cheese, there's more holes. Premise 4: More holes means less Cheese. Premise 5: More cheese = less cheese. Premise 6: Cheese is basically a solid version of milk. Premise 7: So, using the same logic, more milk = less milk. Premise 8: Milk comes from cows. Premise 9: Using the same logic, more cows = less cows. Conclusion: Cows make no sense.
Parents: is this *D I S R E S P E C T* ?? Edit: I found this comment a year later and yes this quite literally is the definition of disrespect I don’t know why I thought this was funny
Question? In school the rule is it’s must be finger tip length (I was going to wear it to school because it was a holiday and On holiday we are allowed to wear holiday clothing which it was) I was following the rules I just didn’t live up to her expectations 🖤 I wasn’t trying to show myself off I was just showing I was fun and I can dress up sometimes 🖤
Victoria’s makeup box you don’t have to prove anything to that guy, especially being that he’s only some stranger (with a wack view). So long as you liked your outfit and you were comfortable in it I say go for it and fuck what others think. Respect for the rules is nice to an extent but you’ll be happier if you can find a way to live closer to your standards that you set rather than those that others attempt to restrain you by. Take care and have a happy confident life stranger. Screw what that one guy said
And if you're child doesn't answer something along the lines of "Well, really shouldn't have done that then" you might have raised a pretty dumb child.
You missed the best “so you’re saying” trick where you take what they say and twist it so that they have to argue against what they said and didn’t say and what they meant by saying so. It can really derail a debate very quickly.
Wrong! Finding a way to get into the head of a fool and convincing him of the truth of your position requires high psychological skills. You are a fool if you think its impossible.
Another great trick is to make the person lose his confidence. You can use phrases like, "Can you speak loudly and clearly?" Also you should increase the loudness of your voice and make it seem more harsher. For the important lines, take pauses after every word and elevate your voice progressively.
@@gowdsake7103 Sure, but what do you mean by "people?" Would people be the other people you're arguing against, or an outside audience looking for who's the most reliable looking guy/girl in the room? In the context of this video the techniques are deliberately dirty and rude tricks, designed to make a party or side win, not to make a logical point win. In this horrible type of "debate," the objective is not to have a conversation or convince the opposing party of your points; it's to convince an audience peering into the debate, and many experts think the only effective tactic to convince an audience you're right is to show that the other person is "weak" or "not even confident" about their points. (Not all politicians use exactly that method, but many are just variants of that.)
AppleRain…"because I said so" it will fuels another argument and it is not intelligent attitude...like telling a dog to come here and if the dog doesn't come here you tell it again just louder...you can't explain things to a dog but you can explain things to a child or to other people...both parties will learn something new especially children . Good by.
I was just mocking how some people in the comments were thinking it described a curtain group while another would say it described the opposite group. On that note though, based on these people's logic, it very well could describe me...
my mom and my grandma: *blames me on something i didnt do* me: *tryna say the truth and the whole story* my mom and my grandma: *sToP tHat iS DiSrEsPeCt*
Counter their argument about disrespectful, they will say, they are older than you and expect you to stop proving your point albeit it is a true point.
Skufzy Attacking someone’s grammar, for example pointing out that they didn’t capitalise the first letter in the sentence, is on the list in the form of a personal attack.
+Sergio Milho Or just flat out mention the accusation. Like this: “Do your parents know that you are gay yet?” (Not that being gay is wrong) “I’m not gay.” See?
It's this kind of attitude about arguments that has resulted in the stalemate political sphere we currently live in. You argue because you believe you are right, you believe the facts align are on your side. If you find they aren't on your side, you reevaluate your argument, you find where its lacking and find out why that is. Maybe you even change your opinion. If you just use rhetorical tactics to win an argument rather than relying on facts and good ideas then you'll never change your opinions and bad ideas will flourish.
Will Roberts it's been happening since the beginning of western democracy in ancient greece. It's simple human nature. Human nature, unfortunately, doesn't always work in favour of humanity.
Coffee Break, by structural problem do you mean having to appeal to a pack of fickle mush heads? And yes, I stole the phrase a "pack of fickle mush heads" from Diamond Joe Quimby.
I agree so much. The problem is that these tactics work to convince voters. And why they work is because the people are not educated in critical thinking.
Think about it this way. Better that these "tactics" be laid out so we ALL can see and understand them. Some people, yes, will choose to be butt munches and use them deceptively HOWEVER People like you and me, who also watched the video, will be 100% ready to "deal" with these butt munch types when they come our way though. The spread of knowledge is both a blessing and a curse like that :/
Sorry, you have to make a real argument and actually have a good understanding of what you’re talking about OR a good understanding of how to argue preferably both but either or works tbh
These give you points in the argument, which are still helpful, also when I mean points I mean you know normal points, also here's something to help you, you can say sorry even if you didn't do it just act peaceful, and then the person then will get annoyed of you
How to win an argument: after you proved your argument just say, "I'm wright, your wrong, get over it." It works for me (as long as you make a valid point)
Saying something as obnoxious and immature as "I'm *right, you're wrong, get over it" wins no arguments. It may end the conversation because it shows you're not debating by using reasonable points instead YOU are in a power struggle... very different things.
What we did as kids: "are you a gay person (but with a local slur) in a cage?" "N-...No?" "THE GAY IS ON THE LOOSE!" and then everyone was supposed to run away from the gay. Come to think of it it's actually quite an educational piece of homophobia.
Tips to win an argument 1) twisting the sentence 2) keep blaming 3) consistently provoking 4) pointing out mistakes 5) Never waiting for an answer keep firing without a break
This was totally true-until maybe last year. These days, you can simply win an argument by randomly screaming, “Don’t you care about the future of our children?” when the argument has nothing to do with children. This is true for both extreme left and the extreme right!
By disagreeing that means that you are arguing by not having an agreement or a resolve in a conflict as you and the other party cannot accept the fact that “you are explaining you are right”.
Dear Coffee Break, My boss had a conversation/debate with me yesterday in which the facts and logic were against him. He used every one of these tactics; probably unconsciously. Unfortunately, the facts against his position were so weighty and so undeniable that it didn't work. Also, he wasn't particularly good at any of these particular tactics. I managed to defeat his argument using only facts and logic, despite these tactics, something which I am very proud of. I recorded the conversation (for my own benefit, as I always do with this particular boss, because it helps me to be sure of my position in hindsight and identify/correct any faults and shortcomings on my part more accurately) and listened to it after watching your video, and I realize that I just kept bringing it back from these tactics to the facts and logic. I did this without knowing anything about what you presented in this video. But I did know that if facts and logic are firmly on your side, as in my case yesterday, a stronger position cannot be maintained, even in the face of sophistry. I have sometimes found myself getting distracted by these tactics in the past and veering from the facts of the argument into the realm of defense. Thanks to your video I am now more confident in the morality of how I conducted myself yesterday and in the strength of my position. I would appreciate it if you could do a video on how to win an argument using only logic and facts, without using these tactics.
May I also say that there is a horribly negative side-effect with using these tactics so frequently to intentionally put the other into personal defense mode over their character rather than over reason and evidence. That side effect is that people are consistently on the defensive, because they EXPECT character slander, even when facts and evidence are the only thing being presented to them. It's like facts and logic are taken as personal slights because they are so used to seeing and participating in personal slights in real life. So they EXPECT facts to be offensive, because there is an emotional attachment within themselves to their position. They have had to defend themselves, their own character, in conjunction with their position so frequently that it in effect melds their personal character with whatever their own position is at that time in their minds. So then facts become offensive in their minds, even when they are only the truth, regardless of how the information is presented.
Brilliant video as always. This isn't a criticism but an addition. This is also the difference between winning an *Argument* and a *debate*. All the tricks mentioned here are easily spot-able logical fallacies. Debate with anyone even mildly amateur in Debating with this and you will lose. Arguments don't have that kind of integration into them. Debates>Arguments. They yield to better results and are Superiorly articulated.
You probably already know this, but it's worth repeating; understanding comes from cooperative dialogue more so than competitive dialogue (though both have their uses). Politics is about promoting your narrative. It is not about being right. It is about making the demos believe what you say. However, argument/debate are based on opposition, and therefore are founded on intransigence and defensiveness. Defensiveness forces you to fix your meaning in place and continuously bolster it, like politics, even against the facts. So, on the one side you have politics (locks meaning in place/gains hegemony) and on the other you have understanding (sharing ideas to disturb this fixity). This is why political theory works in paradox, since both its terms run in opposite directions. So debate is often (not always) quite harmful to thought, since it complements the political fixity and hegemony it claims to undo.
The problem is simple. Too often, questions which should be settled by debate are settled in arguments, or--worse--in the next day's newspapers and comment sections.
Adit Seth debates have their disadvantages too. Things like the inability to fluidly respond to the other sides statements, just shoving in more than they have time to refute, requiring a constant standard of proof (at least as far as i know) that assumes certain institutions are actually trustworthy and that doesnt work with things that have gone unstudied for one reason or another. Overall debating seems to be its own skill and in some cases i have seen people lose debates solely due to a lack of said skill and not an inaccurate position
god to know you educate yourself through pol. It's actually stems from a site yourlogicalfallacyis.com something like that. Obviously the picture is more popular but most debate forums will show it.
Leo Vincent but then the person you argue with will make fun of one of your features (let's say 'you've got ears like Dumbo') and everybody around will laugh at you and the person won and you lost you will feel it
Being right and winning an argument are two COMPLETELY different things. You can always be right if you objectively look at things, admit when your wrong, learn from those mistakes, consider other peoples feelings and strive to grow as a person... you don't need any tricks if you are morally and objectively right. Credibility is key... it just takes some time
I DIRECTLY walk away from a debate when the opponent begins to use ad hominems. My time is better spent elsewhere. Whereas non sequiturs, I'll point them out and try to reframe the debate.
Prinz von Kirchberg so you give the floor to your opposition. If there is an audience, congratulations, you just got discredited and "lost". This is why irrational argumentation dominates politics, it takes less energy to defeat your opponent.
At the beginning you said an argument is a war to be won. I completely disagree, if you treat an argument like a war there are no winners, only people with opposing views. If you treat an argument correctly, it can be a learning experience for both parties. In a good argument, there is someone who is right, and there is someone who learns. If anyone loses you are doing it wrong. The sooner people view arguments as learning opportunities the easier people will get along. Of course during subjective arguments neither person can be right, so you should have 2 learners. That being said, I understand the point of this video.
Yeah, pretty much this. When i was younger, i've read Schopenhauer, but now i have come to the conclusion that it's not about winning an argument, because there isn't really a win at all when your counterpart still thinks, that he is right and you are wrong. In most cases you will never change the opinion of another one, hence you 'haven't achieved anything. An argument in which people come to an agreement or someone is teaching the other one some things, are a win for both parties. That's the true and only way to win in an argument.
but the vast majority of people you'll argue with will use dirty tricks anyway. And even if you know it, you basically can't do anything but pointing it out, and start an argument about how your opponent used a dirty trick to win the argument... Arguments suck. The only valuable debates are philosophical or scientific debates, because then you're not trying to win, but to get the truth.
Excolobaid Exactly! Anybody in a position of power uses dirty tricks to get there, especially politicians and business executives. If you're in a political debate or a board room, it's basically verbal warfare and you have to come prepared.
Thats called being a pussy, having no values, self respect and an opinion. If you have an opinion, someone with a different one will eventually argue with you.
If you don't play you can't reach for the state at the end of the game but one thing to do is to choose a game higher to the one your opponent is playing.
Ben Shapiro attacked Piers Morgan because Piers Morgan was using THE ABSURD PROPOSITION technique to win the argument arguing that only those who don't care about school children, would endorse gun control. Ben Shapiro called him out on his fallacy: as "standing on the graves of dead children" as the wrong thing to do to win an argument. He handled it like a boss.
Kafka Traps are a really fun debate trick. If someone is getting angry, just ask if this is how they treat their family and raise questions about potential violent language and behavior (because after all, if a stranger on the internet can make you so angry, then imagine how angry a person who lives with you every day can make you)
@@WhiteBoyTariq or to someone who thinks a typo is indicative of a person's spelling ability and someone who thinks spelling is indicative of someone's intelligence 😬
Ique yea dude , im digusted by the channels that grows into more subs with just fake enthusiasm, clickbaits ,totally non-productive info and entertainment
He needs to take lessons from the What I've Learned channel. Less memes, pop culture, fancy animation and lame jokes, more research, studies and evidence backed facts.
State what has to be proved Choose your definitions to control the conversation Persuade the audience, not the opponent Denying means guilty Attack the person not the argument to distract The absurd proposition
Ad hominem leads to loss. You only use insults when you lose. If you disguise it as criticism then it might play off. There are a lot of strategies, but the ones with subtle lacing are the strongest, opponents usually have no timr to prepare of recover if you go fill blitz on them with that
if it leads to loss how can you possibly use them "when you lose", meaning you either use them after you lose or using them leads to loss ( i understand what you mean btw, i just had to call you on it ;))
Ad populum fallacy is an excellent tool to spin facts in your favor. There are many variations of that fallacy, for example "if many agree something to be true so it must be true ". And the appeal to nature "if it is natural it must be right and good". Although appeal to nature is terrible fallacy, radiation is natural and so is cancer, you get the gist.
*Step 1* Say " I only step into an argument when i am 100% sure that i will win it and embarass the other person, do you really wanna do this?" *Step 2* Watch them as they leave without even starting.
So this is why all of those bratty, emotional kids seem to win arguments when the quiet, logical kid who's actually right doesn't know how to respond. Life is funny, huh.
It's not about logical or not. You can be logical and quiet as long as you know how to counter those tactics and turn the audience against the opponent. Of course, pretending to be the "emotional kid" works as well.
Well to be fair, a lot of those bratty kids probably learned it from their parents using the same tactics on them. I have emotionally manipulative parents and learned how they did it, but I don't use those tactics because they personally disgust me.
@Brennan McClelland no, ted cruz "ran as a republican and not right wing" the same way bernie "ran as an independent not a socialist" just like he stated
I`ve seen the «the absurd proposition» on both sides of gun control. I’ve seen people say “If there was a innocent child walking to school would you want her to get shot?” I’ve also seen a person who claimed that without guns all children, old people, women and disabled people would have been raped and murdered and robbed all the time, and somehow got a lot of upvotes and all the comments agreed. What about the places without guns. And who do you think would win a gun fight. A child, an old person, a person in a wheelchair or a grown man. Everyone could kill anyone unless they have really good security. Who would win? A sleeping grandma with a gun. Or an intruder who sneaked up on her. The intruder could choke her.
RX4000, well yeah, the intruder would win in that scenario, but he'd probably also win against a grandma who had no gun when she was awake. So the intruder would just win around 100% of the time if the grandma had no gun, but less of the time if she did. At least she might have a chance with the gun if she was awake when the intruder entered. Anyone would probably die, or get raped if they were sleeping when the intruder entered, gun or not. If they happened to wake up though, I'd have to say granny has a far better chance with a gun.
RX4000 Bias always beats logic. Those upvotes are representative of the number of people on that side of the general argument who saw the comment, not the amount of people who agreed.
@Scott Derry Totally agree with you. Unfortunately, I also have to agree with you that if people have no way to protect themselves, there could be another situation like those. What's also unfortunate is I doubt people like you or me will win this battle.
@Scott Derry Yeah, Marxism doesn't really work, does it? If that were to take over, everyone would just expect other people to protect the people they care about, and they wouldn't even have any guns to do it. I'm 'sure' if there were no guns, everyone would suddenly become more courageous. I think some personal responsibility might just be a better option.
Don't be in an argument/debate to prove you are right. it's suppose to be looking for the right answer. you can make a wrong idea look right by giving it a bunch of reasoning to back it up, which will mess you up and all the people who believed you.
RickTrajan sadly most people's egos won't allow them to be proven wrong, so even if on one level they change their mind during a debate they'll double down on their original point
Yea but we are talking about arguments in which you HAVE to win not because you want to find the right answer, it's a different type of debate, and if you are having arguments to find a right answer then don't come to videos like this.
That's why I hate politics. All those tricks are like useless fanservis. Just imagine: you're watching a document on national planet about crocodiles and suddenly there is a naked woman there. I don't watch political debates to know who is the best at proving that 2+2=22 but to know who should I vote for In my country I don't even now if they use those tricks because politicians makes their debates so boring that can be used as a cure for people with narcolepsy
Angelika Skoroszyn May you please edit your comment and fix these grammatical mistakes so I may understand what you're saying. Not throwing shade just that it got a little confusing.
The Enchilada very, mainly because I want to teach him that Theres people worse than me, you may have a good point, but if you don't correct your grammatical mistakes they will pick on you and avoid your good points.
to clarify: I'm NOT encouraging the use of fallacies, or suggesting that truth doesn't matter, I just wanted to make a video on tactics that, like it or not, occur all the time in arguments and debate.
Enjoy, and if you have your own favorite fallacy or rhetorical trick that I didn't cover, comment and tell me what it is!
Your video reminds me of Aristotle's "Rhetoric." It seems like he promotes using dirty tactics, but it's probably more a work that teaches readers self-defense against strategies like these.
Coffee Break
Q
I'm personally partial to the genetic fallacy
Thanks for the ammo Coffee Break, i'm gonna use this to become a politician.
Personally, I couldn't talk to anyone that was like this. There's a term that I dub people (politicians mostly) like this with: Jackass.
1: Trick them into saying yes.
2: Point out they agreed.
3: Keep on doing that.
Perfect formula to piss of narcisists as well😀
This shit hella annoying when you’re the one who got tricked
Zln Potata ans then u keep saying wait stop but they keep I interrupting
Shrek for real
Yes true
You: “Wrongpersonsayswhat”
Them: “What?”
Done
Epic
what
Little does that person know that they said the word themselves :U
Or "I beg your pardon?"
"Okay, I forgive you."
Then you look like you're right, AND forgiving.
What is 5th grade commentary section 🤷
Followed the steps, i won the argument and arrested a cop today
😂 😂 😂 😂
i-
😂
Police: you’re under arrest
Me an intellectual: no u
Police: ah u got me there
Hahaha
This comment gave me a small giggle lmao
step 1: say their breathe stinks
Step 2: sit back and relax as they stumble and stutter trying to figure out what to do.
@@yaboiplank6764 its funny because he didnt respond xd
@@yaboiplank6764 funny
Step 2: make sure your breath doesn’t
Although you can't do this on a call...
...
The other way is to be a parent.
*BECAUSE I SAID SO*
Or a teacher
Or be an women
That's kind of number 5, isn't it?
Be older and say that the opposing side has no respect on older people and that we know more because we've lived more
*Step 1: Ignore your opponent's arguments.*
András Fogarasi
Premise 1: There's cheese.
Premise 2: Cheese has holes.
Premise 3: With more cheese, there's more holes.
Premise 4: More holes means less Cheese.
Premise 5: More cheese = less cheese.
Premise 6: Cheese is basically a solid version of milk.
Premise 7: So, using the same logic, more milk = less milk.
Premise 8: Milk comes from cows.
Premise 9: Using the same logic, more cows = less cows.
Conclusion: Cows make no sense.
if you want to win EVERY argument, thats what you gotta do. You can't be right about everything there is.
Premise 4 taught me more than I could understand in the video :(
All SJW's ever
Every flathead ever.
0:38 trump is rapping over the background beat
Trump lofi xD
Nah James Charles did it better
JAJAJAJAJAJJAJAJAJAJA
Oh damn I noticed
Late Upon Arrival 😂😂😂
Parents: is this *D I S R E S P E C T* ??
Edit: I found this comment a year later and yes this quite literally is the definition of disrespect I don’t know why I thought this was funny
Also Parents: is this *T H E B E L T ??*
Where do you think these actions are learned..
Elooong Musk That’s an easy way to tell that someone has lost an argument.
Me: *whips out The Whip they whip me with *
*OKAY, MY TURN*
I swear, every time I try to reason with my parents they call it a sin and slap me with a belt
I came to see how to win an argument against my mother and instead got a "how to win an argument as a political leader" *smh*
Same lmao
DoodleDan me too she said my dress was to short but it’s finger length I- 🙊
Victoria’s makeup box It is too short, stop being satanic in the form of showing yourself off. Keep covered.
Question? In school the rule is it’s must be finger tip length (I was going to wear it to school because it was a holiday and On holiday we are allowed to wear holiday clothing which it was) I was following the rules I just didn’t live up to her expectations 🖤 I wasn’t trying to show myself off I was just showing I was fun and I can dress up sometimes 🖤
Victoria’s makeup box you don’t have to prove anything to that guy, especially being that he’s only some stranger (with a wack view). So long as you liked your outfit and you were comfortable in it I say go for it and fuck what others think. Respect for the rules is nice to an extent but you’ll be happier if you can find a way to live closer to your standards that you set rather than those that others attempt to restrain you by. Take care and have a happy confident life stranger. Screw what that one guy said
'How to be the most annoying person you can argue with'
That's why those are called dirty tricks, you don't use them on someone important to you
Simple, block them mid sentence
Kanzu999 give them a mango
yeah no
Just laugh when someone argues with you !
Its drives them crazy ! Very effective !😉
For mothers:
* I carried you 9 MONTHS!!*
For dads:
I rAiSeD you!!!
And if you're child doesn't answer something along the lines of "Well, really shouldn't have done that then" you might have raised a pretty dumb child.
Till u live under my roof !
@@Tsmowl Yeah, too bad that's not how reality works and alsoen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Not an argument , I'm afraid.
@@Nai-qk4vp Someone's angry
For me as a single mom.. I carried and raised youuuu.... But I dont usually say that
You missed the best “so you’re saying” trick where you take what they say and twist it so that they have to argue against what they said and didn’t say and what they meant by saying so. It can really derail a debate very quickly.
In other words, Jordan Peterson DESTROYS Cathy Newman
That’s pretty much the same as arguing an absurd ‘version’ of the other’s point, as CB mentioned
Jordan Peterson REKT that trick
Jordan Peterson REKT that trick
My fav
Use the effective “no u”
Marco used "no u"
Angry person fainted!
Gained 69 XP!
Yesn' men't
but my friends say no u back pls help
@@marmalade8344 just say no u times infinity and you're golden
thank you epic gamer god
Parents: "Explain to us what happened."
Me: "Well, what happened was-"
Parents: *_"aRe YoU tAlKInG bAcK tO uS?!?!?"_*
I know right
**cries aggressively**
you'd be a fool to argue with a fool
Lol that name
Wrong! Finding a way to get into the head of a fool and convincing him of the truth of your position requires high psychological skills. You are a fool if you think its impossible.
Democrats are indeed fools
Nah, I just point and laugh at them.
@@Ninjashadoww that's called being a pseudo-intellectual, lmao Fool
Another great trick is to make the person lose his confidence. You can use phrases like, "Can you speak loudly and clearly?" Also you should increase the loudness of your voice and make it seem more harsher. For the important lines, take pauses after every word and elevate your voice progressively.
Well you wont win, people will just ignore you !
For gowd sake can you THINK?!
You fell for it fool! Thunder cross split attack!
But tbh the pun was unavoidable
@@gowdsake7103 Sure, but what do you mean by "people?" Would people be the other people you're arguing against, or an outside audience looking for who's the most reliable looking guy/girl in the room? In the context of this video the techniques are deliberately dirty and rude tricks, designed to make a party or side win, not to make a logical point win. In this horrible type of "debate," the objective is not to have a conversation or convince the opposing party of your points; it's to convince an audience peering into the debate, and many experts think the only effective tactic to convince an audience you're right is to show that the other person is "weak" or "not even confident" about their points. (Not all politicians use exactly that method, but many are just variants of that.)
@@-butterfly-594 People as in a debate or discussion ! Unfortunately the masses fall for this kind of con game far too often
Damn that's harsh
If your a parent, just say "because I said so"
hahaha xD
Argument from authority, call them out
you’re
AppleRain…"because I said so" it will fuels another argument and it is not intelligent attitude...like telling a dog to come here and if the dog doesn't come here you tell it again just louder...you can't explain things to a dog but you can explain things to a child or to other people...both parties will learn something new especially children . Good by.
@@filipkostadinov7309 I can't, they will then say that I'm disrespecting them.
How to win an argument:
Step 1: say their mom is fat
Done.
@Jelle otter no u
Imong mama
Your mom is fat
your opinion suck
which mom?
Your mom gay
Pro tip:if someone says "no u"
The only thing you can say "no u u"
Then "no u u u" and so on
@the streched boi just say
"I'm rubber and you're glue
Anything you say to me bounces off and sticks to you."
Oascany “everything you say will ricochet off me and glue to you”
@@qaiser648 sorry, you're right.
But also, no u.
@@qaiser648 M&M
@@qaiser648 I'm devastating more than ever demonstrating
Me: *uses this tactic*
Mom: *GO TO YOUR ROOM*
I like my room.
I dont HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE AND BUY GROCERIES! TAKE THAT MOM! >:D
*laughs in social anxiety
@@coolguy-mc6eo lol same
You can always edit a Wikipedia page
Jaydyn M Wrong. Certain pages are locked and all pages are moderated.
True
@@DjAmaratziOfficial just inspect element and send a screenshot
And so is your comment
disyorn « inspect elements » lol every programmer is crying rn
Wow, this describes [group you disagree with] too perfectly.
Wow, this describes Kaif-Tube too perfectly.
I just had to write that paradox ^^
I was just mocking how some people in the comments were thinking it described a curtain group while another would say it described the opposite group.
On that note though, based on these people's logic, it very well could describe me...
thats because all groups use these tactics at some point
That's what so frustrates me. All these people, not realizing they're hypocrites. I'm not even excluding myself btw, but at least I admit it.
@@festethephule7553 by admitting you can do that and trying to change it, doesnt make it alright but it makes you loads better than those who don't
The REAL way to win an argument: Call the other person racist then run away.
@Scott Derry Yup
@@snvlogs3216 if that dosent work then call them a nazi and crowd shame them
If a lot of people are calling you racist you might want to check your attitude lol
@@alexchimi7093 You don't have to be racist to be called racist anymore
@@snvlogs3216 how? Don't you think that people are just becoming more conscious of racism as a whole?
my mom and my grandma: *blames me on something i didnt do*
me: *tryna say the truth and the whole story*
my mom and my grandma: *sToP tHat iS DiSrEsPeCt*
Definetly
They only say that 'cause they know they're losing the argument
Say ok boomer
you realise if they call you lazy or say you're well disrespectful you gotta remember THEY RAISED YOU
Counter their argument about disrespectful, they will say, they are older than you and expect you to stop proving your point albeit it is a true point.
You can always win an argument if you shoot accurately first.
Well, then it becomes more of a lecture doesn't it?
I prefer to think of it as an aggressive negotiation.
Yes, just look at Alexander Hamilton's example
3:00 - In shorter words "who smelt it, dealt it"
this brings back so many flashbacks to elementary school oml
Another good tactic to win is to say "Your mom gay." if you are losing.
This doesn't works in India
@@swarnima328 pro tip: use indian language
*NO U*
@Dick Borbon Who decides that?
@@swarnima328 keep shouting bc, mc laudu etc. At the top of your voice.
Even i am an Indian lul.
I hate ALL of these tricks so much and the people that use them evoke nothing but the deepest contempt from within me
That's why they're called dirty tricks
the people who dont use these tricks r weird.
I have a neighbour like this ugh😡😡😡😡
Skufzy Attacking someone’s grammar, for example pointing out that they didn’t capitalise the first letter in the sentence, is on the list in the form of a personal attack.
Yet your watiching it so ur probally one of those people
Kafka trap
Deny it=guilty
Don't deny it=guilty
Sergio Milho yup.
zzz43452 if you're caught off guard that can be a problem.
Or just simply don't answer with a yes or a no
Sergio Milho u must avoid it or re route
+Sergio Milho Or just flat out mention the accusation. Like this:
“Do your parents know that you are gay yet?” (Not that being gay is wrong)
“I’m not gay.”
See?
How about never talking to people
Seems legit.
You are right, best solution:-)
@@matejhrdy ahoj
Step 1: Be a loner
Step 2: Repeat step 1
Go back to 2009 with that gay ass trollface
Tip: if you're a competitive debater or lawyer, DO NOT DO THIS, IT WILL END YOUR CAREER. _Learned from experience_
It's this kind of attitude about arguments that has resulted in the stalemate political sphere we currently live in. You argue because you believe you are right, you believe the facts align are on your side. If you find they aren't on your side, you reevaluate your argument, you find where its lacking and find out why that is. Maybe you even change your opinion. If you just use rhetorical tactics to win an argument rather than relying on facts and good ideas then you'll never change your opinions and bad ideas will flourish.
agreed. it's a structural problem with politics though. Rhetorical tactics are just too effective.
Will Roberts it's been happening since the beginning of western democracy in ancient greece. It's simple human nature. Human nature, unfortunately, doesn't always work in favour of humanity.
Coffee Break, by structural problem do you mean having to appeal to a pack of fickle mush heads?
And yes, I stole the phrase a "pack of fickle mush heads" from Diamond Joe Quimby.
I agree so much. The problem is that these tactics work to convince voters. And why they work is because the people are not educated in critical thinking.
Think about it this way. Better that these "tactics" be laid out so we ALL can see and understand them. Some people, yes, will choose to be butt munches and use them deceptively
HOWEVER
People like you and me, who also watched the video, will be 100% ready to "deal" with these butt munch types when they come our way though.
The spread of knowledge is both a blessing and a curse like that :/
Im pretty sure everyone I hate has watched this video
Jeff LaFlare Lmao same
You must lose a lot of arguments
Jesse Grant you must not make good enough comments to get other people to like them.
Aesthetic Vibes why are you coming at me😂
Your profile picture is goes soo well with that comment!
What if the person I am having a argument with
watched this!?
Joshua 115 wheres ur profile pic frm
Call them out on their fallacies.
*an argument
Sorry, you have to make a real argument and actually have a good understanding of what you’re talking about OR a good understanding of how to argue preferably both but either or works tbh
Immovable object meets unstoppable force
Or just say *"I CARRIED YOU FOR 9 MONTHS"*
Too bad I can't
I am not owned by you, I just live through you 🤔?
yeah.... big mistake
@@mirage_panzer2274 I'm going to say this to a person next time I'm arguing with them irl or on the internet
Just reply with a “Did I give consent to that?” and watch them flounder in confusion.
@@mixtapemania6769 for
Alternate title: "The argumentative tactics of sociopaths". It's great information.
These give you points in the argument, which are still helpful, also when I mean points I mean you know normal points, also here's something to help you, you can say sorry even if you didn't do it just act peaceful, and then the person then will get annoyed of you
It's doesn't matter whether 2+2=5 , it only matters if you can prove it
I should not be fangirling this much about getting a heart on this
Yes you should
I wish if it's true...
my opinions are facts 2+2=4 minus 3, that’s quick maths
Timo You should read Emanuel Kant's take on that lol, maybe you'll change your position
People really whatching this because they have important debate coming up meanwhile i’m just doing this to win as impostor in among us
damn same bro haha
lmaoo
How to win an argument:
after you proved your argument just say, "I'm wright, your wrong, get over it." It works for me (as long as you make a valid point)
That just makes someone look like a condescending pseudo-intellectual
Saying something as obnoxious and immature as "I'm *right, you're wrong, get over it" wins no arguments. It may end the conversation because it shows you're not debating by using reasonable points instead YOU are in a power struggle... very different things.
So if I use these, I can become a politician?
Andrew wang
Then everyone that i live with is running for office... shit...
NAH WRONG
You need use them as if it's your profession.
Just take your time. You're gonna be a 'good' politician.
No, but you can build a wall.
Andrew wang nope where is your money or influence
Andrew wang *yeh*
Did anyone else get extremely distracted by Trump trying to tear Gorsuch's arm off?
The Kafka trap reminds me of this joke we used to do.
"Are you ashamed of wetting your diapers?"
"No. Wait. Yes. Wait, i dont wear diapers. Oh shoot."
"Have you told your parents that you are gay?"
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Marita | it was an elementary school joke.
What we did as kids: "are you a gay person (but with a local slur) in a cage?" "N-...No?" "THE GAY IS ON THE LOOSE!" and then everyone was supposed to run away from the gay. Come to think of it it's actually quite an educational piece of homophobia.
"Why don't you believe in God?"
Question presupposes that a God exists.
Tips to win an argument
1) twisting the sentence
2) keep blaming
3) consistently provoking
4) pointing out mistakes
5) Never waiting for an answer keep firing without a break
This was totally true-until maybe last year. These days, you can simply win an argument by randomly screaming, “Don’t you care about the future of our children?” when the argument has nothing to do with children. This is true for both extreme left and the extreme right!
observe your parents argue and follow what your mom does.
So curl up in a ball and get hit?
She always wins hahaha
Exquisite Aquarium lmaooo
@@exquisiteaquarium9675 Oh my GOー
@@exquisiteaquarium9675 This is the best comment I have EVER read holy shit
I didn't remember a single thing from this video.
fr though
If someone accuses you of arguing just say "I'm not arguing I'm explaining why I'm right"
By disagreeing that means that you are arguing by not having an agreement or a resolve in a conflict as you and the other party cannot accept the fact that “you are explaining you are right”.
Same thing as arguing.
How to win an Argument?
*Break their Mouth*
The Simpsons I enjoy this tactic.
Dear Coffee Break, My boss had a conversation/debate with me yesterday in which the facts and logic were against him. He used every one of these tactics; probably unconsciously. Unfortunately, the facts against his position were so weighty and so undeniable that it didn't work. Also, he wasn't particularly good at any of these particular tactics. I managed to defeat his argument using only facts and logic, despite these tactics, something which I am very proud of. I recorded the conversation (for my own benefit, as I always do with this particular boss, because it helps me to be sure of my position in hindsight and identify/correct any faults and shortcomings on my part more accurately) and listened to it after watching your video, and I realize that I just kept bringing it back from these tactics to the facts and logic. I did this without knowing anything about what you presented in this video. But I did know that if facts and logic are firmly on your side, as in my case yesterday, a stronger position cannot be maintained, even in the face of sophistry. I have sometimes found myself getting distracted by these tactics in the past and veering from the facts of the argument into the realm of defense. Thanks to your video I am now more confident in the morality of how I conducted myself yesterday and in the strength of my position. I would appreciate it if you could do a video on how to win an argument using only logic and facts, without using these tactics.
May I also say that there is a horribly negative side-effect with using these tactics so frequently to intentionally put the other into personal defense mode over their character rather than over reason and evidence. That side effect is that people are consistently on the defensive, because they EXPECT character slander, even when facts and evidence are the only thing being presented to them. It's like facts and logic are taken as personal slights because they are so used to seeing and participating in personal slights in real life. So they EXPECT facts to be offensive, because there is an emotional attachment within themselves to their position. They have had to defend themselves, their own character, in conjunction with their position so frequently that it in effect melds their personal character with whatever their own position is at that time in their minds. So then facts become offensive in their minds, even when they are only the truth, regardless of how the information is presented.
And coffee break, I hope you read my previous replies because of how much your video has moved me. Thanks.
I appreciate your comments :). Glad the video had that impact.
jasonlb136 how do u have so many suns
*subs
Brilliant video as always. This isn't a criticism but an addition.
This is also the difference between winning an *Argument* and a *debate*.
All the tricks mentioned here are easily spot-able logical fallacies. Debate with anyone even mildly amateur in Debating with this and you will lose. Arguments don't have that kind of integration into them.
Debates>Arguments. They yield to better results and are Superiorly articulated.
You probably already know this, but it's worth repeating; understanding comes from cooperative dialogue more so than competitive dialogue (though both have their uses).
Politics is about promoting your narrative. It is not about being right. It is about making the demos believe what you say. However, argument/debate are based on opposition, and therefore are founded on intransigence and defensiveness. Defensiveness forces you to fix your meaning in place and continuously bolster it, like politics, even against the facts. So, on the one side you have politics (locks meaning in place/gains hegemony) and on the other you have understanding (sharing ideas to disturb this fixity). This is why political theory works in paradox, since both its terms run in opposite directions. So debate is often (not always) quite harmful to thought, since it complements the political fixity and hegemony it claims to undo.
The problem is simple. Too often, questions which should be settled by debate are settled in arguments, or--worse--in the next day's newspapers and comment sections.
Person Personworth not on the audiences. Yes.
You do realise all the examoles given above were debates, right? Philosophers argue, politicians debate, friends and family squabble.
Adit Seth debates have their disadvantages too. Things like the inability to fluidly respond to the other sides statements, just shoving in more than they have time to refute, requiring a constant standard of proof (at least as far as i know) that assumes certain institutions are actually trustworthy and that doesnt work with things that have gone unstudied for one reason or another. Overall debating seems to be its own skill and in some cases i have seen people lose debates solely due to a lack of said skill and not an inaccurate position
*thou shalt not commit logical fallacies*
god to know you educate yourself through pol. It's actually stems from a site yourlogicalfallacyis.com something like that. Obviously the picture is more popular but most debate forums will show it.
St T. I actually don’t have a 4chan account, but I know that it was the cover photo for pol. I’ve probably only been on 4chan about 8ish times.
deharleyva no. They work for the poorly educated
>I actually don't have a 4chan account
Neither do I, and I've browsed it for years. topkek
thou shalt not get caught making fallacies; if you don't get caught doing it, it didn't happen
if i get in an argument, I dont talk.
I fart then walk away
I've been eating a lot more protein lately and 'protein farts' are incredible room clearers. I had no idea there was such a thing till I googled it.
Ever heard of staircase wit?
Where can one learn this power???
I fake sneeze.
They immediately start screaming at me, while I walk away.
A similar, but more deadly tactic.
Instructions not clear, wife still won argument
Basically, "use logical fallacies to manipulate your audience,"
"... But ultimately come across as an asshat."
Vladislav Dracula that is true mister Țepeş
This should be called "logical fallacys to watch out for In arguments"
Dawson Yeeee
But they know they play dirty arguments
It is quite funny when we unvail the truth ....and see the way the game is played...
Check the pinned comment.
He does mention in the vid that if you fight clean, you should know about these tricks to counter them.
Just say “no u” constantly to win the argument.
No, that just makes you look like an idiot.
damn i totally forgot about this comment after a year
@@IdleForever9483 I wasn't even expecting anyone to respond lool
KoVurt, thanks to you that I had rediscovered this gem
@@KoVurt no u
Be right in the first place use the right vocabulary and strong logic.
True but sadly people use tricks to make the general audience think otherwise.
Leo Vincent but then the person you argue with will make fun of one of your features (let's say 'you've got ears like Dumbo') and everybody around will laugh at you and the person won and you lost you will feel it
Leo Vincent ‘Shut up, nerd’
'No u'
If the only way to be right in an argument was to be right in the first place, politics would be much more different from what it is today.
Are you the French Clyde?
Voulez vous coucher avec moi?? 😂😂
Braxx South park:v
clyde,clyde, we found a french man clyde.
oui
kid: that is just the sort of thing a French person would say.
It seems Trump has mastered all the tricks
Dan Maingi he has learned from the great kek
Your fascist
Henrique Melchior Gomes Nein
Hillary was trying all the same shit, she just didn't have the charisma or quick wits.
Wouldn't that just make him a narcissist?
Being right and winning an argument are two COMPLETELY different things.
You can always be right if you objectively look at things, admit when your wrong, learn from those mistakes, consider other peoples feelings and strive to grow as a person... you don't need any tricks if you are morally and objectively right. Credibility is key... it just takes some time
I DIRECTLY walk away from a debate when the opponent begins to use ad hominems. My time is better spent elsewhere.
Whereas non sequiturs, I'll point them out and try to reframe the debate.
Prinz von Kirchberg so you give the floor to your opposition. If there is an audience, congratulations, you just got discredited and "lost". This is why irrational argumentation dominates politics, it takes less energy to defeat your opponent.
If you attack the person and not the argument, that will most likely backfire in the end lol
Blake Aerni Unless your last name is Trump.
Reg Ner or Craig
If someone says “Because I said so”, reply with “So?”
Finally, a way chance to win a fight againts a karen in a conversation
At the beginning you said an argument is a war to be won. I completely disagree, if you treat an argument like a war there are no winners, only people with opposing views. If you treat an argument correctly, it can be a learning experience for both parties. In a good argument, there is someone who is right, and there is someone who learns. If anyone loses you are doing it wrong. The sooner people view arguments as learning opportunities the easier people will get along. Of course during subjective arguments neither person can be right, so you should have 2 learners. That being said, I understand the point of this video.
This is only comment here that deserves to be pinned.
Yeah, pretty much this. When i was younger, i've read Schopenhauer, but now i have come to the conclusion that it's not about winning an argument, because there isn't really a win at all when your counterpart still thinks, that he is right and you are wrong. In most cases you will never change the opinion of another one, hence you 'haven't achieved anything. An argument in which people come to an agreement or someone is teaching the other one some things, are a win for both parties. That's the true and only way to win in an argument.
but the vast majority of people you'll argue with will use dirty tricks anyway. And even if you know it, you basically can't do anything but pointing it out, and start an argument about how your opponent used a dirty trick to win the argument... Arguments suck. The only valuable debates are philosophical or scientific debates, because then you're not trying to win, but to get the truth.
whoooosh
Excolobaid Exactly! Anybody in a position of power uses dirty tricks to get there, especially politicians and business executives. If you're in a political debate or a board room, it's basically verbal warfare and you have to come prepared.
You win in an argument by not engaging in one. End of story.
The only winning move is not to play
Thats called being a pussy, having no values, self respect and an opinion. If you have an opinion, someone with a different one will eventually argue with you.
Only someone who loses all his arguments would say that.
Trick #4.
If you don't play you can't reach for the state at the end of the game but one thing to do is to choose a game higher to the one your opponent is playing.
some people are not good with sarcasm
Ben Shapiro attacked Piers Morgan because Piers Morgan was using THE ABSURD PROPOSITION technique to win the argument arguing that only those who don't care about school children, would endorse gun control. Ben Shapiro called him out on his fallacy: as "standing on the graves of dead children" as the wrong thing to do to win an argument. He handled it like a boss.
Absolutely right. "How dare you?" was the response because Morgan was sure his strategy would work. When it didn't he had nothing prepared.
I'm just gonna tell ny opponents "i CarriEd YoU fOr NiNE mOnTHs"
Or
"gO tO yOur rOoM"
or
"DiSreSpEcTfUL"
OK karen
Kafka Traps are a really fun debate trick.
If someone is getting angry, just ask if this is how they treat their family and raise questions about potential violent language and behavior (because after all, if a stranger on the internet can make you so angry, then imagine how angry a person who lives with you every day can make you)
Denial equals guilt... WHO SMELT IT DELT IT !
YOU MUST CONFESS TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE
But whoever articulate it, particulate it!
Say the rhyme do the crime
Sounds like a trick that soneone needs to use who is W R O N G.
Yup , i agree with the smelt it , dealt it theory !!!
Titel: "how to ALWAYS win an argument"
Video: "no one can ALWAYS win an argument"
Me: 🤦🤦🤦🤦
SandStormGamers Didn’t he just say «no one is always right»?
I wouldn't listen to somebody who can't spell title correctly.
@@WhiteBoyTariq or to someone who thinks a typo is indicative of a person's spelling ability and someone who thinks spelling is indicative of someone's intelligence 😬
@@ishaboy5090 true I was just bieng a troll
SandStormGamers
You: Titel
Me: 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
How to win an argument:
Tell your opponent "suck it up cupcake."
I hate that my mother does this.
You deserve more attention man your videos are so informative
Ique yea dude , im digusted by the channels that grows into more subs with just fake enthusiasm, clickbaits ,totally non-productive info and entertainment
He needs to take lessons from the What I've Learned channel. Less memes, pop culture, fancy animation and lame jokes, more research, studies and evidence backed facts.
Ique naaaaah, if everyone sees it, it won't work on anyone.
Just say: "Look over there!"
GUY: "Where!!!"
Me: "Broke your neck!"
FATALITY
5:17 "do you want to sleep with me ?"
solid facts right there
Lmaooo yeaah
Don't need this cuz I am always right and I know everything
Say it with me: attention is the currency of the marketplace of ideas.
attention is the currency in the marketplace of ideas.
There seems to be a problem with your profile picture. The Flash and Circle isn't supposed to have a red line through the middle.
Treading closely to a logical fallacy
Arguementum Ad Populum
The kafka trap is like trump saying fake news to CNN and CNN trying to defend themselves.
Will Roberts not really, I wasn't being specific to CNN, its just that if theres anything that he disagrees with he will call it fake news...
Will Roberts true
Jack
"Obama is a muslim"
Will Roberts
Anyone who says Trump is the greatest president ever: Not fake news
Anyone who tries to critic Trump: FAKE NEWS
Satyam Patel Trump isn’t the best president though
Step 1: dont argue with your mother
Cause you know she will win
State what has to be proved
Choose your definitions to control the conversation
Persuade the audience, not the opponent
Denying means guilty
Attack the person not the argument to distract
The absurd proposition
With the kafka trap; ask the other party what's it gonna take to prove them wrong.
And then they'll come up with some convoluted bullshit that you are either incapable of doing or wouldn't be worth the effort.
Ad hominem leads to loss. You only use insults when you lose. If you disguise it as criticism then it might play off. There are a lot of strategies, but the ones with subtle lacing are the strongest, opponents usually have no timr to prepare of recover if you go fill blitz on them with that
if it leads to loss how can you possibly use them "when you lose", meaning you either use them after you lose or using them leads to loss ( i understand what you mean btw, i just had to call you on it ;))
Not necessarily. You can insult someone and still win.
You lose the second you rely on logical fallacies.
This video is the equivalent of those game hacks tutorials that say: "This is for entertainment purposes only" lol
Ad populum fallacy is an excellent tool to spin facts in your favor. There are many variations of that fallacy, for example "if many agree something to be true so it must be true ". And the appeal to nature "if it is natural it must be right and good". Although appeal to nature is terrible fallacy, radiation is natural and so is cancer, you get the gist.
Trump went to roasting college, Fact
Roasting college instead of law or politics.
Omnivale because putting the word “crooked” before someone’s name is impressive and intelligent.
The best way to win an argument when facts aren't on your side, is to close your ears and yell "La-la-la-la-la!"
Damn, you're right.
*Step 1* Say " I only step into an argument when i am 100% sure that i will win it and embarass the other person, do you really wanna do this?"
*Step 2* Watch them as they leave without even starting.
So this is why all of those bratty, emotional kids seem to win arguments when the quiet, logical kid who's actually right doesn't know how to respond. Life is funny, huh.
As a logical person i can say this is true. You have to ignore these people and don't argue with them, thats the only way...
It's not about logical or not. You can be logical and quiet as long as you know how to counter those tactics and turn the audience against the opponent. Of course, pretending to be the "emotional kid" works as well.
Well to be fair, a lot of those bratty kids probably learned it from their parents using the same tactics on them. I have emotionally manipulative parents and learned how they did it, but I don't use those tactics because they personally disgust me.
"logical"
1:20 Are we gonna ignore how Ted just got bamboozled by Bernie
@Brennan McClelland what? did you not see how bernie completely exposed his logical fallacy?
@Brennan McClelland no, ted cruz "ran as a republican and not right wing" the same way bernie "ran as an independent not a socialist" just like he stated
Yes
@@joeroganofficial5433 Right wing and rpublican pretty much mean the same thing though. Independant == Socialist?
Tiago Carvalho
Scandinavian countries are free market not socialist
Thanks now I can persuade people that my gender is vape mod
Only because I'm vaping while watching
looked through the comments and was expecting "ok boomer" but this comment section isn't up to date
I`ve seen the «the absurd proposition» on both sides of gun control. I’ve seen people say “If there was a innocent child walking to school would you want her to get shot?”
I’ve also seen a person who claimed that without guns all children, old people, women and disabled people would have been raped and murdered and robbed all the time, and somehow got a lot of upvotes and all the comments agreed. What about the places without guns. And who do you think would win a gun fight. A child, an old person, a person in a wheelchair or a grown man. Everyone could kill anyone unless they have really good security. Who would win? A sleeping grandma with a gun. Or an intruder who sneaked up on her. The intruder could choke her.
RX4000, well yeah, the intruder would win in that scenario, but he'd probably also win against a grandma who had no gun when she was awake. So the intruder would just win around 100% of the time if the grandma had no gun, but less of the time if she did. At least she might have a chance with the gun if she was awake when the intruder entered.
Anyone would probably die, or get raped if they were sleeping when the intruder entered, gun or not. If they happened to wake up though, I'd have to say granny has a far better chance with a gun.
RX4000 Bias always beats logic. Those upvotes are representative of the number of people on that side of the general argument who saw the comment, not the amount of people who agreed.
@Scott Derry Indeed, what are we going to ban next, knives? After all, I'm sure butchers murder people on the side of the street all the time.
@Scott Derry Totally agree with you.
Unfortunately, I also have to agree with you that if people have no way to protect themselves, there could be another situation like those.
What's also unfortunate is I doubt people like you or me will win this battle.
@Scott Derry Yeah, Marxism doesn't really work, does it? If that were to take over, everyone would just expect other people to protect the people they care about, and they wouldn't even have any guns to do it. I'm 'sure' if there were no guns, everyone would suddenly become more courageous.
I think some personal responsibility might just be a better option.
Don't be in an argument/debate to prove you are right. it's suppose to be looking for the right answer. you can make a wrong idea look right by giving it a bunch of reasoning to back it up, which will mess you up and all the people who believed you.
RickTrajan sadly most people's egos won't allow them to be proven wrong, so even if on one level they change their mind during a debate they'll double down on their original point
If you want the right answer don't debate. Go discuss.
Yeah i wish, people dont care about truth
Yea but we are talking about arguments in which you HAVE to win not because you want to find the right answer, it's a different type of debate, and if you are having arguments to find a right answer then don't come to videos like this.
People need to learn how to lose, that's it.
I will file this away, for reasons...
my opinions are fact
opinions are for minions
political bias is strong in this one
its not clear to me if he likes or dislikes trump
That's why I hate politics. All those tricks are like useless fanservis. Just imagine: you're watching a document on national planet about crocodiles and suddenly there is a naked woman there. I don't watch political debates to know who is the best at proving that 2+2=22 but to know who should I vote for
In my country I don't even now if they use those tricks because politicians makes their debates so boring that can be used as a cure for people with narcolepsy
Angelika Skoroszyn May you please edit your comment and fix these grammatical mistakes so I may understand what you're saying. Not throwing shade just that it got a little confusing.
Flamingberd Fredy
I believe you are being to picky.
The Enchilada very, mainly because I want to teach him that Theres people worse than me, you may have a good point, but if you don't correct your grammatical mistakes they will pick on you and avoid your good points.
Flamingberd Fredy
I understand you point. But if they dismiss yoy over a few grammar mistakes. They probably werent worthy talking to.
The Enchilada its how the real world works, I wish it didn't have to work that way, however it's the sad truth, by the way (you*) lol
Kafka trap reminds me of this : Do your mom knows that you take drugs?
*Does
Also that's a nice one though xD
Ur mom
NO I
Michael Scofield I'd love to be my own mother
Michael Scofield no you’re mom
When your future enemy watches this video