Debate, Rhetoric, Conversations

[Anonymous No.22420694]

Suggest books on getting better at debates and improving your rhetoric skills. Personal tips and advice would be appreciated

[Anonymous No.22420725]

>>22420694
Years ago I looked for such a thing and couldn't find anything. However I got much, much better at debate since then from my own study of other people debating. I don't know any books but watching debates, and especially ones with master debaters is very helpful. Watch Christopher Hitchens. Watch political debates. Watch religious debates. Watch debates that don't have a moderator. You'll figure out that there are only a couple different debate styles you can use, and you need to choose the one suited for your personality. You need to watch people who think like you.

Depending on the situation you need a different set of skills as well. i.e. more aggressive & punchy without a moderator.

I was going to write more tips for you but then I realized I should just go write that official guide myself. Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.22420762]

>>22420725
thank you anon

[Anonymous No.22420780]

Okay I must say that I looked up a fair few debate books are read their synopses and I have to say that most look like they are a lot longer than they ought to be. There is a lot to this subject, but not that much, and its simple, but mostly it needs to be learned via experience, which you can get through reading or watching a real debate and the outcome, and not chapters on chapters of advice about breathing techniques.

You need to debate practice in your head. Run a mock debate simulation with you and another person. Show yourself trying every possible answer. See which ones make you look bad. See which ones don't make sense coming from you. See which ones fit your style of humor. See which ones make you more likeable. Try as much as possible to always paint yourself as the righteous victim - like you're testifying at your own trial. Never come off as a bully, but do thoroughly destroy opponents immediately if they use any fallacy or try an angle that tarnishes you or your argument. When attacked with an ad-hominem feign incredulity and go 'wow, if you're gonna go there' then insert a joke to crack open the audience then cut into the opponent with the deepest cutting jab you had saved. Only use one cut here don't do more its overkill and looks like a pile on. You also need to act as if you're really unaffected by most insults, except for a choice few in which tactically it would behoove you to get riled. For example if someone insults your wife's appearance you should appear riled and pissed or else it would be an insult to your wife that you brushed it off. If it wasn't obvious already you are only playing to the crowd, not to your opponent, so looking like a good guy - strong, but good is how you win. Also you don't usually want to mirror the opponents tone or attitude or speed. Also - very important - never accept their framing, and almost never answer any question they ask you. Even if it isnt a setup(it is) you don't give them the power of directly answering their question, you are not their dog. If they say, "what did you do with those receipts Mr. Suess? Did you pay your taxes last year?" Usually you would respond to this with a question like, "what did you do with those whores in Thailand?" or "Did you pay your employees last year?" If there is genuine curiosity from the crowd about the question in regards to you then answer it, but follow it with a question or an excuse to go on a rant like - "Yes I paid my taxes - but I know crooks like you never do" or "Yea I pay my taxes, unlike the crooks who run this country" Now if you actually DIDNT pay your taxes then you cannot lie, you need to avoid the question. In this case go with example one or hit them with, "my taxes are my business, but your [insert opponent scandal here] is more important." Or you can attack the idea of taxes altogether, "I paid my tax in full with the sweat and tears this government rips out of me everyday, and I promise to end these taxes that pay for unjust wars"

[Anonymous No.22420845]

The most important thing I learned however is that anyone with any disposition can come off as chad no fucks given boss of them all. Your OP pic had Walter White for example. Walter White is not a loud jumpy in your face guy. Even a high school chemistry teacher can be tough if he plays it right. A lot of times quiet and simple is cool - think eminem or a thug of few words. At the same time you can be high energy and run circles around your opponent like ben shapiro. You can be a complete nerd and whollop the other guy in a squeaky voice, or you can play the astute professor think thomas sowell, or richard dawkins, etc and remain poised and only use complete sentences.

I know I said I wasn't going to write much but this subject really fascinates me.

Look at Trump and Obama. Both are great orators. Both did fantastic in their debates. Both have huge strengths and huge weaknesses.
Obama is like the opposite of Trump, he won't get in the mud with him. Also he stutters a lot. Every other word is an uuhh or ummm. But this cool collected attitude lends him so much credibility, and he always seems like the level head - the guy in charge.

For example lets say Trump is debating Obama:

Trump: "I am gonna make this country great again, unlike Punku over here who wants to make Kenya great again!"
>*crowd whoos and boos*
Obama: *looks down, "Now I -" *waits for audience to quiet* "Now I know we've been through this Donald.. America has changed now. We know that Americans come in all colors, white, black, or orange"
>*crowd spills their popcorn and starts drinking hand sanitizer*
Trump: "This guys is a fraud and a fake! A real phony! Barack Osama I like to call him, and he talks like a robot"
>[In this scenario, Trump calling out Obama for talking like a robot will work well. Watch]
Obama: "Well, uhhh, see uhh-"
Trump: "See! Stuttering robot. I guess Kenya doesn't know how to program robots!"

Calling out your opponent with a name, and then them immediately proving that insult correct absolutely destroys them. Like when Trump called Jeb low energy, and then they panned to Jeb and he acted low energy. Everyone laughed and agreed with Trump's insult, casting away Jeb to the nether regions forever.

It's kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't, because if he calls you low energy then you start getting all uncharacteristically hyper, then it shows you are being effected by the insult and modulating your behavior which gives the opponent power, but if you remain low energy then you lose as well. I can think of two ways to get out of this bind, you can either - insult him back(this is the better option but it requires that you have something really good on hand) or you can do nothing/take the high road.

Taking the high road is Trump's weakness. If someone is just hitting you to an annoying level with catty attacks, then you need to get mad and direct the energy at the issue higher than both of you - this way the attacker looks like an unserious kid.

[Anonymous No.22420860]

>>22420694
Have something to say, even if it doesn't seem particularly world moving. I see people fail frequently due to lack of having a point, as strange as that sounds desu. Know the topic, research research research. If you don't know about what you are debating about you are destined to fail. Position and posturing. Last 2 are hard to explain, best way it was explained to me was to just believe you are correct, even if the position you are arguing for is empirically wrong and you know it, simply acting like it is correct can give you self confidence.

[Anonymous No.22420869]

>>22420780
>>22420845
thanks for the effortposts, anon
if there's any more I'd be glad to read it

[Anonymous No.22420890]

>>22420869

I could go on about Trump all day, there probably is a book just about his style. But as you can expect, thats a style very few people can do. Trump can do it. I've seen other political people straight up copy it(Nick Fuentes comes to mind) and they mix it with their own personal flair. But you have to play to your strengths. Trump's strength is his limitless confidence, whether fake or not, Trump is literally obese and orange and has the shittest haircut, but he's a billionaire and he gets what he wants and nothing effects him. He knows the art of the deal.

I'm going to guess you're not a billionaire. But are you smart? You probably are, but are you linguistically smart? You're on /lit/ so you probably are.

Then Hitchens would be great to learn from because he outwits and runs circles around opponents and makes them look stupid with logical binds.
"If you believe X then surely you believe crazy exaggeration Z" (but if logically sound will be funny and the opponent will be confused)

Let's say you aren't smart actually and you don't know big words and you're not a tough guy billionaire. Then you can still very handily win. Look at Jesse Lee Peterson. The guy may be smart, but he doesn't come across that way. Maybe he wants to be unassuming, but his thing is that he just pesters with questions. Never stops asking questions, its actually an annoyingly good strategy. And when you ask him if he believes X crazy thing he just hits you with the 'yes' meme.

Or you can be dim witted but righteous. "I didn't come from no gated community, but I know people and I know the streets. I know what its like to see people suffer!" (you can draw from your experience and wisdom)

Now im only framing everything politically because the majority of debates I've seen have been political.

Jordan Peterson actually talks a fair bit about strength coming from 'honing your language until its a sword'. I didn't know what this meant at first, and I thought it was goofy. But he's right. Jordan Peterson is a goofy professor, and he also has the voice of Kermit the Frog and he literally cries at the drop of a hat. It doesn't matter(nothing actually matters and any personality can come back from anything, any scandal... almost). He is strong in those debates where he wrecks some tranny or BBC journalist - and the sword is his speech. By honing his words into swords what he means is being accurate.

to be continued...

[Anonymous No.22420960]

>>22420890
What I like about Jordan's style is that he breaks everything down ontologically and correctly and undresses your worldview. "But do you really mean that? But what does that word mean? But what does this mean?"

I heard a particularly irritating question from a shit for brains podcaster the other day, and it wasnt a gotcha question the guy was just retarded and thought it was clever. He said, "Are you a good guy trying to be bad, or a bad guy trying to be good" What I would do is 1. never answer that moronic question. 2. say "so by good you mean weak and by bad you mean cool?" "So what frame of mind do you have to be in to come up with a question like that?" or simply "what does that mean?"(in a condescending tone)

The downside if you're smart is you can come off as a smart aleck, nerd, know-it-all, this is inevitable because its how you come off when you correct people, which I do(in debates) because I strive for accuracy. What you can do in this situation is lean into it and reframe the conversation in terms of what's "cool and good" and whats "bad and gay". In one debate with one person they could frame it as being smart or knowing anything means you're a nerd. But in this debate you're going to frame it as though being stupid is bad. If your opponent is smart enough to know they're dumb or uninformed on the subject, they're gonna say something like,
"hahaha nerd loser"
and cut you off when you try to correct them. What you need to do is stop and think of how to reframe the situation as
>(smart == cool)
Hitchens does this really well.

The great thing is, once you do this you can basically just fuckin kill em. You're like Bugs Bunny torturing Elmer Fudd. Running circles around them hitting them with hammers everywhere they aren't looking. If they're experienced they will be really afraid of that, so theyll have an ace up their sleeve. Trump always uses "You're a nasty guy" and it usually works. Even though Trump has been bullying the whole night he can whip that out and act like the victim but only if you attack him unfairly. This is what none of the other republican candidates could understand when they attacked him. So even when you're going Buggs mode on a nigga don't go overboard and keep it above the belt.

You don't wanna be too verbose with your point for example lets say Im debating Ted Cruz(like boxing Glass Joe in punch-out) and Cruz says 'you want free healthcare? Well you sound like a communist who wants to raise taxes on poor old people who worked hard for their social security' Now I could say, "Ackshually ONE Im not a communist, TWO Its not exactly free its a single payer plan and THREE I would only need to raise taxes slightly on above average earners but overall in the long run you would actually save money!" that was long winded, audience is lost, and the labels Cruz used on me still stick. Instead I'd focus one point or reframe "Why dont you think americans deserve to see a doctor?"

[Anonymous No.22420980]

I don't know where this fits but I heard a communist (richard wolfe) debate the former CEO of Whole Foods about Capitalism.

Communist: "Capitalism is bad. Capitalism always moves towards powerful monopolies gobbling up industries and is anti-competition"
CEO: "Actually Capitalism is good. Capitalism is self correcting and we dont have to worry about monopolies anymore"
Communist: "Oh really? You sold your company to a monopoly!"
CEO: ... *sips water*

Before this he did sell Whole Foods to Amazon. The guy was destroyed and had nothing to say so he just went for a sip of water. It was pretty amazing. I'm not a communist btw but he objectively creamed him. The CEO should have done his homework before the debate and looked for the weakspots in his position. The holes that he couldn't plug in his ship should have been completely avoided. If he did his homework then he would have known to never even bring up the word 'monopoly'

all right gn

[Anonymous No.22420999]

>>22420890
>>22420960
very useful, thank you again, anon
I'm saving this thread

[Anonymous No.22421062]

>>22420960
>"Why dont you think americans deserve to see a doctor?"
I think Americans deserve to see a doctor NOW, not in eighteen months. Define "Americans", by the way, do illegal immigrants count?

[Anonymous No.22421961]

>>22421062
define 'doctor' please, and why haven't you recited TND yet?