I didn't read it all, but a few things:
1. You keep talking about debating based on facts not emotions. That's only partly true and it doesn't help you to mention it. It is more likely to turn people against you, by making yourself seem above them. These people have a strong ideological, religious belief in what they are saying. They do not even realise their arguments are based on emotions. It is similiar to atheists arguing with religious people about God.
2. It is much easier, quicker and less confrontational to debate politics in real life. Most people, especially weak minded liberals and women, will get triggered but are less likely to completely melt down in person if they realise you are well intentioned. Behind a computer screen people are more likely to feel safe and tough enough to get angry at you and call you names. Their small amygdalas cannot handle it.
3. Idiots on the wrong side of history like to 'debate' by constantly moving the goalposts and changing the argument. If you make a good point, they will just say "yeah but.. what about [unrelated event]!!" It is tiresome trying to explain to them that one Breivik shooting is not equal to all the Muslim terrorist attacks. This is why it goes on so long and wastes so much of your time.
If you have to debate them, force them to stick on the same point by constantly repeating it and not allowing the subject to change. This will make it a lot shorter. Or just mock them mercilessly to everyone else. Do NOT allow them to constantly dictate the conversation by letting them bring in new 'arguments.'
4. A Scott Adams trick of persuasion is to rephrase your statements into leading questions. It forces people to actually think about what you're saying and encourages them to agree with you. "Don't you think she could have spent that time on social media training?"
5. After the third message when someone tried to lecture you about all the varieties and subtleties of sexism, I would have stopped from any debate right there. That person is an idiot and hopeless. You will never find common ground with someone as naive as that. The only thing you can do is that point is mock her and lose your friends.
1. You keep talking about debating based on facts not emotions. That's only partly true and it doesn't help you to mention it. It is more likely to turn people against you, by making yourself seem above them. These people have a strong ideological, religious belief in what they are saying. They do not even realise their arguments are based on emotions. It is similiar to atheists arguing with religious people about God.
2. It is much easier, quicker and less confrontational to debate politics in real life. Most people, especially weak minded liberals and women, will get triggered but are less likely to completely melt down in person if they realise you are well intentioned. Behind a computer screen people are more likely to feel safe and tough enough to get angry at you and call you names. Their small amygdalas cannot handle it.
3. Idiots on the wrong side of history like to 'debate' by constantly moving the goalposts and changing the argument. If you make a good point, they will just say "yeah but.. what about [unrelated event]!!" It is tiresome trying to explain to them that one Breivik shooting is not equal to all the Muslim terrorist attacks. This is why it goes on so long and wastes so much of your time.
If you have to debate them, force them to stick on the same point by constantly repeating it and not allowing the subject to change. This will make it a lot shorter. Or just mock them mercilessly to everyone else. Do NOT allow them to constantly dictate the conversation by letting them bring in new 'arguments.'
4. A Scott Adams trick of persuasion is to rephrase your statements into leading questions. It forces people to actually think about what you're saying and encourages them to agree with you. "Don't you think she could have spent that time on social media training?"
5. After the third message when someone tried to lecture you about all the varieties and subtleties of sexism, I would have stopped from any debate right there. That person is an idiot and hopeless. You will never find common ground with someone as naive as that. The only thing you can do is that point is mock her and lose your friends.
"Especially Roosh offers really good perspectives. But like MW said, at the end of the day, is he one of us?"
- Reciproke, posted on the Roosh V Forum.