Sloppyseconds
Onlysloppy2nds4u
- Joined
- May 24, 2020
- Posts
- 72
- Reputation
- 758
Debating: An art of manipulating human weakness
Maybe it's just me, but there's no such thing as "winning" debates when one is truly blackpilled. When all illusions are broken down and the harshest truths are embraced, we eventually realize that debating is more about smokes and mirrors, specifically a person’s clout or "charisma", turning the tide of the "battle". The ideas themselves aren't responsible for helping them win, but superficial traits. When there’s an audience, the discourse becomes a matter of theatrics rather than truth-seeking. And when there’s pressure to perform and impress, it’s already over if the person physically or status mogs you. Debating is inherently performative, but the truth itself is not.
Pure truth-seekers will never be ranked highly in a popularity contest. Most people want to feel good and be entertained. The blackpill in its rawest form (think of concepts such as life and death) is observational, rather than prescriptive. It doesn’t force people how to act or think. It merely out the patterns that inherently exist in nature independent of human input.
As someone who used to be interested in the sciences, shitlib cuckedditors in particular have soured anything academia-related for me. This mostly comes from knowing there’s political motivation behind what type of knowledge is prioritised and spread to the mainstream. There’s a reason why studies of microchimerism and telegony aren’t mainstream. Because if it were, the cohesion of feminist ideologies would immediately start crumbling, as it already should. Earlier this year, I saw a study with some sensationalist headline about stress having a negative effect on sperm. Yet it didn’t surprise me that they’d put more emphasis on this over studies on female biology.
I almost never reply on my own threads because a lot of people here would rather continue living in some comforting illusion than face the truth. Not saying that I’m not open to criticism about my threads, but most of the “criticism” I receive is blatant strawmanning. That’s why I keep any “debates” I have in private convos. The benefit is that it removes its performative nature and becomes more of a discussion, hence there’s no pressure to impress anyone with theatrics, hopefully leading to something productive (a miracle).
The Holy Trinity of Debating
This framework is not perfect since it’s still rather vague in some areas, and I personally still think debating is a waste of time if seeking truth. But how “winnable” a debate is for you basically hinges on these three key points. For it to be “winnable”, you should obviously have at least one and a half of the points below:
1) The stance you choose on a topic (positioning)
Some topics are prone to being more “opinion-based” than others, specifically when arguing which song or music artist is better. Hence, being more “debatable”. While the “winner” for a debate topic like “men are generally physically stronger than women” is quite clear for any rational person. In an ideal world, pure rationality and pursuit of truth alone should win debates. While the truth itself exists on its own regardless of human input, its subjective perception by the audience is still at the mercy of the two points below. Hence why I think that even if the debate is “won”, it’s cheapened because it did not rely solely on truth and rationality alone.
2) Your looks, demeanour and social status
Ideally, you have to mog your opposition to oblivion for it to really count as a full point, as exceptional looks are a status symbol in itself. If you’re a 5’10 MTN stuttering aspie, you’re going to struggle against even a 5’7 thugmaxxed sub-5 just because he’s more NT than you and capitalized on his “flaws” for jestermaxxing. Thus, he’ll have an easier time cultivating status. The gap simply isn’t big enough for your “weirdness” to be overlooked.
3) The type of audience and setting/culture
This probably has the most weight out of all three variables in determining whether the debate is winnable or not for you. The most ideal place for a debate is in an apolitical, non-hierarchical sphere. But that is nearly impossible in the real world. Even academia is mostly left-leaning. I reckon most of the debates you’ll have will be informal and within your social group. But then again, I’m almost certain that there’s a hierarchy within it, and everyone would automatically dickride the most popular guy there (which goes back to point 2). Hence, you’ll already be at a massive disadvantage debating him, no matter how great a thinker you are.
Example 1: Imagine if you as a non-black were trying to convince a bunch of black people in the hood that blacks tend to commit the most crimes out of all races. Even if the stance you choose is incredibly strong and based on hundreds of studies, it won’t matter because you won’t have the so-called “street cred” in the “hood” (and that you’re a non-black). They’ll just see you as some disruptive invader. And obviously, it’s the “hood” you’re choosing to debate in. I won’t be surprised if you got mugged or gunned down the minute someone there laid their eyes on you. Basically, the debate in this example is unwinnable because it only ticks 1/3 of the points. Might even be a 0/3 from the hood's perspective just because their emotionality blinds them completely.
Example 2: Let's say an average-looking oofy doofy tries to argue that "women are generally physically stronger than men". From any rational person's POV, it's a hot garbage stance to take. Yet if they were arguing in a setting where it's a feminist safe space, I'd argue they'd win simply because they are glazing the fuck outta women assuming they aren’t hideous or a complete “incel”. They can also rely a lot on sophistry and talk about the elasticity of vaginas and how men can’t handle being kicked in the balls. They won’t get pussy, but they have a good chance of winning the debate. Hence, it’ll be 1.5 of the 3 points (partially meets 2nd point and takes full advantage of 3rd point). But if his opponent is chad, then the women there might submit to his stance and think rationally for once instead, as much as they don’t want it to be true. Solid 2/3 points from that, hence why I think chad would win (Stomps the first point and second point). Hell, I won’t even be surprised if chad alone turned all the women there into conservative trads and therefore ended up ticking all three points.
The problem with Devil's advocates
I used to hang out with this guy who would often play devil’s advocate to the point where I thought he was just trolling. This was before I was even active on .org and just began digging into the blackpill, but I remember he tried to debate me when I mentioned that physical appearance plays a huge role in attraction. I noticed that for a lot of people, when they don’t know much about a topic, they tend to ramble and blurt out a concatenation of words that sound convincing together to save face. So what did I do instead? I told him I wanted to post some links to the chat towards some articles, studies and theories, specifically from Charles Darwin, so that we can go through them together. But he said “no point”. It was a voice call between us two with no one else. So the entire time I was thinking, “Who are you even trying to impress here you fucking nerd?” There's a difference between "sounding right" and "being right".
There’s always people like him who think their own internal logic matters more than hundreds of years of research and observations. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect in full force. I swear to god, debating is often filled with nerds who believe in reinventing the wheel, and that really put me off from ever joining those clubs back in school. It’s like those typical cuckedditors that put all their emphasis on exceptions rather than the 99% of the time something doesn’t occur. They think that it’s supposed to be some paradigm-breaking checkmate. “bUt ThAt JuSt MeAnS yOu’Re NoT oPeN-mInDeD!!”. I try to be as open-minded as I can be until it starts becoming aimless self-cuckoldry, such as thinking that “women with higher body counts are better marriage candidates than virgin women”.
Ironically, he wanted to become a lawyer at one point. These debating nerds don’t understand that the court isn’t some Ace Attorney battleground and that there’s no room for improvisation and sounding like a smartass. There's a misconception that one can rely on their own personal logic as a lawyer. Rather, it's more about making arguments around existing facts and law. It’s like he sees debating as some Dragon Ball Z battle where the one with higher power level wins, or that arguments are about who is able to conjure a better rasengan. But really he should just shove that rasengan up his own ass. In the grand scheme of things, him disagreeing with me on things don’t mean shit since I’m merely just a “messenger”. If he disagrees with me on the notion that attractive people generally have an easier time socializing (should be common sense), then that’s his loss. He’s not just arguing against my “rasengan”; he’s arguing against centuries of documentation of human nature.
TL;DR: Debating is a performative art of exploiting human weaknesses, not a pursuit of truth. When there’s an audience, you’re better off leveraging your charisma, looks and status than relying on sheer logicality to “win”. Private discussions are the closest thing to ideal for truth-seeking since there is no performative pressure. There's the “Holy Trinity of debating” (three keys to win a debate): stance and choice of topic, looks/status, and audience/setting. The problem with Devil’s advocates in my experience is that they tend to ramble to save face, ignoring centuries of observations in favour of personal logic. They value “sounding right” more than “being right”.
Previous thread:
looksmax.org
@TiktokUser @bloomercel @(-__-+) @LLcel @greycel @Changmentum @the_nextDavidLaid @我需要阴部 @Spookybah
Maybe it's just me, but there's no such thing as "winning" debates when one is truly blackpilled. When all illusions are broken down and the harshest truths are embraced, we eventually realize that debating is more about smokes and mirrors, specifically a person’s clout or "charisma", turning the tide of the "battle". The ideas themselves aren't responsible for helping them win, but superficial traits. When there’s an audience, the discourse becomes a matter of theatrics rather than truth-seeking. And when there’s pressure to perform and impress, it’s already over if the person physically or status mogs you. Debating is inherently performative, but the truth itself is not.
Pure truth-seekers will never be ranked highly in a popularity contest. Most people want to feel good and be entertained. The blackpill in its rawest form (think of concepts such as life and death) is observational, rather than prescriptive. It doesn’t force people how to act or think. It merely out the patterns that inherently exist in nature independent of human input.
As someone who used to be interested in the sciences, shitlib cuckedditors in particular have soured anything academia-related for me. This mostly comes from knowing there’s political motivation behind what type of knowledge is prioritised and spread to the mainstream. There’s a reason why studies of microchimerism and telegony aren’t mainstream. Because if it were, the cohesion of feminist ideologies would immediately start crumbling, as it already should. Earlier this year, I saw a study with some sensationalist headline about stress having a negative effect on sperm. Yet it didn’t surprise me that they’d put more emphasis on this over studies on female biology.
I almost never reply on my own threads because a lot of people here would rather continue living in some comforting illusion than face the truth. Not saying that I’m not open to criticism about my threads, but most of the “criticism” I receive is blatant strawmanning. That’s why I keep any “debates” I have in private convos. The benefit is that it removes its performative nature and becomes more of a discussion, hence there’s no pressure to impress anyone with theatrics, hopefully leading to something productive (a miracle).
The Holy Trinity of Debating
This framework is not perfect since it’s still rather vague in some areas, and I personally still think debating is a waste of time if seeking truth. But how “winnable” a debate is for you basically hinges on these three key points. For it to be “winnable”, you should obviously have at least one and a half of the points below:
1) The stance you choose on a topic (positioning)
Some topics are prone to being more “opinion-based” than others, specifically when arguing which song or music artist is better. Hence, being more “debatable”. While the “winner” for a debate topic like “men are generally physically stronger than women” is quite clear for any rational person. In an ideal world, pure rationality and pursuit of truth alone should win debates. While the truth itself exists on its own regardless of human input, its subjective perception by the audience is still at the mercy of the two points below. Hence why I think that even if the debate is “won”, it’s cheapened because it did not rely solely on truth and rationality alone.
2) Your looks, demeanour and social status
Ideally, you have to mog your opposition to oblivion for it to really count as a full point, as exceptional looks are a status symbol in itself. If you’re a 5’10 MTN stuttering aspie, you’re going to struggle against even a 5’7 thugmaxxed sub-5 just because he’s more NT than you and capitalized on his “flaws” for jestermaxxing. Thus, he’ll have an easier time cultivating status. The gap simply isn’t big enough for your “weirdness” to be overlooked.
3) The type of audience and setting/culture
This probably has the most weight out of all three variables in determining whether the debate is winnable or not for you. The most ideal place for a debate is in an apolitical, non-hierarchical sphere. But that is nearly impossible in the real world. Even academia is mostly left-leaning. I reckon most of the debates you’ll have will be informal and within your social group. But then again, I’m almost certain that there’s a hierarchy within it, and everyone would automatically dickride the most popular guy there (which goes back to point 2). Hence, you’ll already be at a massive disadvantage debating him, no matter how great a thinker you are.
Example 1: Imagine if you as a non-black were trying to convince a bunch of black people in the hood that blacks tend to commit the most crimes out of all races. Even if the stance you choose is incredibly strong and based on hundreds of studies, it won’t matter because you won’t have the so-called “street cred” in the “hood” (and that you’re a non-black). They’ll just see you as some disruptive invader. And obviously, it’s the “hood” you’re choosing to debate in. I won’t be surprised if you got mugged or gunned down the minute someone there laid their eyes on you. Basically, the debate in this example is unwinnable because it only ticks 1/3 of the points. Might even be a 0/3 from the hood's perspective just because their emotionality blinds them completely.
Example 2: Let's say an average-looking oofy doofy tries to argue that "women are generally physically stronger than men". From any rational person's POV, it's a hot garbage stance to take. Yet if they were arguing in a setting where it's a feminist safe space, I'd argue they'd win simply because they are glazing the fuck outta women assuming they aren’t hideous or a complete “incel”. They can also rely a lot on sophistry and talk about the elasticity of vaginas and how men can’t handle being kicked in the balls. They won’t get pussy, but they have a good chance of winning the debate. Hence, it’ll be 1.5 of the 3 points (partially meets 2nd point and takes full advantage of 3rd point). But if his opponent is chad, then the women there might submit to his stance and think rationally for once instead, as much as they don’t want it to be true. Solid 2/3 points from that, hence why I think chad would win (Stomps the first point and second point). Hell, I won’t even be surprised if chad alone turned all the women there into conservative trads and therefore ended up ticking all three points.
The problem with Devil's advocates
I used to hang out with this guy who would often play devil’s advocate to the point where I thought he was just trolling. This was before I was even active on .org and just began digging into the blackpill, but I remember he tried to debate me when I mentioned that physical appearance plays a huge role in attraction. I noticed that for a lot of people, when they don’t know much about a topic, they tend to ramble and blurt out a concatenation of words that sound convincing together to save face. So what did I do instead? I told him I wanted to post some links to the chat towards some articles, studies and theories, specifically from Charles Darwin, so that we can go through them together. But he said “no point”. It was a voice call between us two with no one else. So the entire time I was thinking, “Who are you even trying to impress here you fucking nerd?” There's a difference between "sounding right" and "being right".
There’s always people like him who think their own internal logic matters more than hundreds of years of research and observations. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect in full force. I swear to god, debating is often filled with nerds who believe in reinventing the wheel, and that really put me off from ever joining those clubs back in school. It’s like those typical cuckedditors that put all their emphasis on exceptions rather than the 99% of the time something doesn’t occur. They think that it’s supposed to be some paradigm-breaking checkmate. “bUt ThAt JuSt MeAnS yOu’Re NoT oPeN-mInDeD!!”. I try to be as open-minded as I can be until it starts becoming aimless self-cuckoldry, such as thinking that “women with higher body counts are better marriage candidates than virgin women”.
Ironically, he wanted to become a lawyer at one point. These debating nerds don’t understand that the court isn’t some Ace Attorney battleground and that there’s no room for improvisation and sounding like a smartass. There's a misconception that one can rely on their own personal logic as a lawyer. Rather, it's more about making arguments around existing facts and law. It’s like he sees debating as some Dragon Ball Z battle where the one with higher power level wins, or that arguments are about who is able to conjure a better rasengan. But really he should just shove that rasengan up his own ass. In the grand scheme of things, him disagreeing with me on things don’t mean shit since I’m merely just a “messenger”. If he disagrees with me on the notion that attractive people generally have an easier time socializing (should be common sense), then that’s his loss. He’s not just arguing against my “rasengan”; he’s arguing against centuries of documentation of human nature.
TL;DR: Debating is a performative art of exploiting human weaknesses, not a pursuit of truth. When there’s an audience, you’re better off leveraging your charisma, looks and status than relying on sheer logicality to “win”. Private discussions are the closest thing to ideal for truth-seeking since there is no performative pressure. There's the “Holy Trinity of debating” (three keys to win a debate): stance and choice of topic, looks/status, and audience/setting. The problem with Devil’s advocates in my experience is that they tend to ramble to save face, ignoring centuries of observations in favour of personal logic. They value “sounding right” more than “being right”.
Previous thread:
The problem with using this site as the foundation for your fame/legacy (JFL)
"The birth of Incelius Maximus" (69th post) This should be a water thread, but any potential replies will show you that it isn’t. It's contradictory when users will say: "w-why put in so much effort into threads it's just an incel site bro". Yet at the same time they care about being liked and...
looksmax.org
@TiktokUser @bloomercel @(-__-+) @LLcel @greycel @Changmentum @the_nextDavidLaid @我需要阴部 @Spookybah
Last edited:
