"Short, quippy and wrong" -- this is how I am going to describe Ben Shapiro to people from now on.

This is why the left has started using short, quippy, and *dismissive* phrases like "okay boomer" or memes like "source: I made it up," "source: crackpipe" in response to the short quippy and *wrong* statements of the right. This seems more successful than actually debating the right.

I love how conservatives always complain about the "wall of text" during an argument. Which is basically just an unintented way of admitting that you don't care or are too stupid to understand a proper argument.

"The right has learned that if you never *look* like you're losing, you can convince a lot of people that you're not." That reminded me of Contrapoints' video "The Aesthetic" - winning a debate in the eyes of the public is not about being factually or logically correct. It's all about pageantry. We're in the circus, not the forum

I just play their same game. Once I give an explanation and they make another short quip, I just say: “you didn’t address my point.” They’ll say the quip again, I’ll tell them that they’re wrong and they’ll move on to the next quip. I’ll then reiterate, “you didn’t address my point. That’s twice now.” I’ve found this to be surprisingly effective. Onlookers will this realize when they see it happening. Even in the lizard brain, that short reminder to the audience that your opponent isn’t addressing what you saying takes them out of lizard and into rational. It’s not foolproof, but you’ll be surprised how much it works. I’ve even seen Gabes tell the Angry Jacks that they’ve lost and are now embarrassing themselves.

this is why we invented the "Ok boomer" meme

"never admit defeat" even when you lose a national election in a landslide

You forgot to mention one other strength of this approach: the application of the so called "theorem of the pile of shιt". It goes like this: - he throws some bullshιt at you, it takes 10 seconds for him to do it. - you dig it up, it takes you 10 minutes! - he do it again, on another subject, for him it's still 10 seconds. - you dig it up again, it takes you even more than 10 minutes. etc etc Creating shιt is faster than digging it up, you can't win. It works the best for the conspiration theorist. Take the chemtrails, you need a meteorologist and an engineer and maybe even a pilot for fully debunking a random guy. But even the alt right can use it, combine it with the "whatabout argument" and you can generate tons of shιt easily

“You’re offended” is their favorite box.

When you started describing "Never Play Defense," I started realizing that's _exactly_ what Trump does. It's amazing how successful someone can be by never admitting defeat, despite having lost.

Playing dumb is a really important tactic that I don't see leftists using - I think smart people are just uncomfortable looking dumb. But you can avoid some arguments entirely and still reveal their lies this way. If he says "She stole all that money from people!" You can say, "Oh wow, really? I didn't know about this. What do you mean? Who did she steal from? When did this happen?" Now it's not an argument, just a person who made a claim and someone who wants to know more, someone he might want to try and convince. Putting you down and trying to look like the "winner" doesn't work for him in this situation. If he stays quippy and vague, keep asking questions, prodding at all those lies of omission. "Wait, you're saying she stole from the people who donated to her?" He might keep withholding, looking like he's hiding something and now he's playing defense. Or he'll have to give more details and reveal the fact that he's full of shit. Or he'll send you a link to some bullshit article - "Wait, I think you sent me the wrong article. This is talking about that project she did. Could you send the one about her stealing?" Or he'll try to pivot to another accusation - "Wait, I'm still confused. That's interesting too, but what did you mean when you said she stole from people?" The worst case for you is if he completely ignores you. Then you go put together your summary of what really happened and say, "To anybody who was wondering about the theft claims, here's what really happened."

I had this kid in my third grade class that would make girls cry by saying stuff that's wrong then insulting them when they tried to correct him , always with the same calm tone. He got them riled up and would work them into a meltdown and act like he won because he's a calm collected person while she's being hysterical. And people would believe him because of this. This is why a lot of boys never grow out of that. Because of that kid there's a handful of people who still believe that bees are Beatles because Beatles all have stingers.

Looking back on this one two years later I think this is partially why the "Ok Boomer" meme may have hit such a nerve among Conservatives and the Alt-right. Because it really just shuts down the argument instead of giving them space to continue to attack. It's very different to how Liberals have been arguing previously, short, quippy and making little attempt to explain and educate like we usually do, but it certainly plays well for a crowd. Personally I'm hopeful that it's a first foray into a new era of progressive memeing that can capitalize on this kind of rhetoric so we can all save time for useful stuff instead of worrying about extensive time-wasting arguments with insincere people.

That whole thing about "short, quippy, and wrong" being countered with carefully researched explanations, only to get "short, quippy, and wrong" responses reminds me of an eye-opening and disappointing exchange that I had with my father. No surprise, he's more conservative than I am, but we have a good relationship. There are many things on which we respectfully disagree, and I never felt like I couldn't have a rational discussion with him... until the following event happened. We were discussing economics, and he made the questionable claim that "lowering taxes _ALWAYS_ increases tax revenue (because of the corresponding increase in economic activity)". I was surprised to hear this, and I thought he was being over-broad in his statement, so I replied with something like "Well, maybe in _some_ circumstances, but obviously not in _all_ cases-" "No! _ALWAYS!"_ So, I engaged the skills that I had learned in university, where I went to business school. Whether we _ought_ to use tax policies that maximize government revenue is another important topic, but not one I needed to research for this subject. I had one very clear fact-claim to assess. I researched multiple professional economists, some more liberal, some more conservative. I collected studies from multiple, different universities. I gained a basic understanding of the terms, assumptions, and framework that professors, experts in this precise field used to discuss this very subject. I presented my father a research paper of an email with academic citations for all of my claims. Long story short, almost all economists agree that there is a tax rate (the peak of the "Laffer curve") for a given country at a given time that maximizes government revenue, that tax rates above this rate decrease economic activity so much that it reduces government revenue, and tax rates below that special point _also_ decrease government revenue because the corresponding _boost_ to economic activity is outweighed by the reduction in the tax rate. Also, though they disagreed on the details of the _degree_ of the difference, almost all economists, regardless of economic ideology, agreed that the USA's current tax code put us well below the peak of the Laffer curve. In other words, it was generally accepted that, where we were then, increasing tax rates marginally would increase tax revenue. My father's entire rebuttal was to claim that Prof. Laffer himself showed up on Fox News to say that "supply-side economics always works". I was so dumbfounded that his response was so poor compared to my research, that he had engaged in no effort to match my research or to address my specific points, yet acted like what he said somehow rebutted my whole position. It came as such a disappointing shock to me.

Damn, as of 2024 people still put others into boxes in order to justify not listing to differing viewpoints by saying things like "Pronouns in bio detected: opinion rejected" lol

I'd like to point out this actually relates back to "The Left Can't Meme". Memes work at their best when they're short, quippy, and posed in a weird/absurd way. Leftists are the ones who constantly have to provide the added context, make the correct statement, and explain their point, while conservatives are able to just say 5 or 6 words that sound funny, and undercut them. It doesn't matter if those 5 or 6 words are unrelated, wrong, or don't make sense; they're short and quippy.

Oh man, this is so embarrasing to watch. That red dude is literally me back when Sarkeesian did her Feminist Frequency videos. Thank god I got out of that hell.

"The liberal fantasy of putting someone in their place." Someone once pointed out to me that Democrats love a moral victory, which helped me to understand why they kept using the same playbook. Yeah.... it's depressing.

I fell into this quicksand from hell once in an MMO area chat talking to a self-professed "young conservative wanting to civilly debate" (I KNOW but I was young and not yet dead inside) and I felt like I was going crazy because of this exact bullshit, and I could see people reacting to it just like this! Like some being swayed to his side, etc., and it was literal years ago and my ass is still so chapped over it lmaooo. This video is a godsend and has saved my rhetorical bacon a fair few times. Jesus Christ. It was also horrifically disappointing to realize that onlookers super duper don't give a shit about what you're saying, they care if you "seem right." They really think explaining = losing, even if they wanted the explanation in the first place! So frustrating and insidious.

“Woke” is the new catch all box. Someone or something you disliked encountered failure? Must be because they went woke.

Videos like these make me grateful that I don’t do internet arguments anymore.

I've often found that whenever I criticize the right, I'm met with a criticism against a prominent left-wing candidate I've never supported. And I'm like "cool cool, but I never said anything about them, what does your disdain for them have to do with my disdain for the candidate I know for sure you support?" Annoying how binary politics is treated in that regard. And whenever I see people seize on one part of something I actually said but they're ignoring the part it built up to and stuff surrounding it for context and other relevant stuff in the argument, I might say "hey, you neglected to comment upon all this other stuff I said".

Easy way to make them acknowledge that they lost a round is by making them confirming clearly that this is the case. If you ask something like: "so she did not steal money, correct?" You stop them in their tracks and usually can just go on with a peaceful life.

Oh my God! This is so true! One time I had a convo with a dude who said systemic racism doesn't exist in America and I showed how the SC ruled NC state government engaged in voter suppression and I also pointed out how black men are incarcerated @ disproportional rates & he moved the goal post to, "you're assuming police target black men because they are black" and I pointed at studies where they showed the correlation and the he moved the goalpost to, "black men are more violent than any other racial group." I this point I realized what was going on & refused to engage with this person. He was only shifting goalpost further so he wouldn't have to address the issue or change his mind.

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

I like how the examples provide themselves in the comment section. Especially "pick one thing out and rebut it whilst ignoring the rest" part. Good work!

This video genuinely puts the entire argument style of right leaning people into words, well done & I will be saving this for later use

No matter how accurately you refute their points, their tried and true shield will always be "well what about-". You can see many examples in this very comment section.

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes" Alas, Obi Wan also didn't grasp the irony of his words.

This video is a perfect summery of almost every single comment war I've gotten into on YourTube. Except instead of political debate, the topic we argue about is usually Star Wars.

Something I have the tendency to do in an argument if my opponent is trying to change the subject is very loudly thank them for conceding the previous subject. They *HATE* that. Once I draw attention to everything they're trying to drop by the wayside, they either have to go back to it so they can "win," give a good reason for the change of subject, (which puts them on the defense) or just cede the issue to me and try to salvage things going forward. They never do the third thing and rarely do the second. They'll usually either let themselves be dragged back to the original point where they know they're being made to look foolish or, much more commonly, fire off some ad hominems in my direction and leave in a huff when I don't get pissed and defensive.

This is why I always answer to those short, quippy, wrong accusations with questions. If they want to continue the argument, they need to start explaining. Then we're on a level playing field.

It makes me a bit sad how many people completely missed almost everything you said and only took small parts of your video to make it as if you are making a completely different argument while ignoring your actual arguments. Oh, wait... Thanks for another great video, please keep making them!

Ha, you know as a screenwriter I've always absolutely despised the trope where one character makes this incredibly long, clearly manicured diatribe that's designed entirely around putting the antagonist character in their place and you've helped me realise why - because it's the most fallacious and artificial BS that trains people into thinking you can just 'own' your opponent like they're a boss in a video-game and you just have to keep hitting the X button. It's the equivalent of having a kid in a movie go up to his bullies and proudly say "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never hurt me" - you're just lying about how people work.

I love this series so much. Every left leaning person should watch these and learn from your research and experience. I always hated the smug liberal being condescending because they are ultimately right, when the other side has never cared about being right. They only care about winning, and they have for so long.

This is exactly how my toxic older sister talks to everyone. She's mindless and impossible to say the least. This so eloquently put it in layman's terms while at the time the arguments feel like talking to a wall and losing my sanity. Im saving this video for my own mental health. Thank you so much.

Debating alt-right ideologues and their ilk is always so damn frustrating because it's like talking against a wall. Just look at all the people in the comment section that are almost comically offended by a calm, rational, well-researched video about rhetorical techniques but offer no actual rebuttals other than personal insults, "some people on the left do this, too!!!" whataboutism and straight up lying about the content of the video.

Based on the last video, i changed the way i discuss with alt right. I never let them deflect but always end with a question. No matter what they say next, i come back to my original question. They deflect like crazy but it is MUCH easier to end it fast when there is a question you have given them, it stops that "accusation loop". You have the control if ou want to expand that question. Not them. You can give very, VERY short arguments: "answer my question first". Keep referring to the one and ONLY thing they said. Do not let them sidestep, deflect, pick your text apart. Just don't even let go of that control once you get it. Most often, they discussion ends very fast, it is less than the critical 5 minutes: if the discussion has not moved anywhere near conclusion in 5 minutes, it never will. I have not made anyone change my mind but boy, have i made a lot of them furious.. One warning: you actually have to know every single detail in your first response. You need to have all the weapons but you are deliberately using them. sparsely. If you have any doubts, just don't engage. Down vote, thumbs down and move on.

For years I would argue with my brother about various political things. It would always end with me in tears and my brother laughing at how “frustrated I was for being proven wrong”. Whenever I would try to leave he would say that means he won. The reality was I just go frustrated with explaining my ideas over and over and he would just ignore what I said

It took me 10 years on the internet for the content of this video, a short explanation would simply be "don't feed the trolls" to sink in. I spent years and years getting sucked into so many arguments that I was actually depressed so finally realizing this and even better, acting on it, really helped my mental health on the internet. I WAS that "triggered" meme lol not literally, but I felt like that so many times it's insane...I am so glad I finally figured this out after years of my husband telling me that I didn't have to play with trolls.

This must be why calling them on their logical fallacies and shady debate tactics and going back to the original premise instead of engaging with their new premise is so effective at making them throw tantrums instead of continuing debating.

There is an alternative to just not engaging - it's to introduce your point of view through Socratic method. See James O'Brian do this in real time with UK right wingers. A:How can you support this woman that conned people out of 100K? B:Where did she do that? Link? A:[Links alt-right tweet about her kickstarter] B:[Link the actual kickstarter] But that's a Kickstarter for 10k, not 100K, how come? A:Well people gave her 100K and she never delivered anything! B:Isn't the delivery here? [link] A:It took too long to deliver! B:So she did deliver the thing right? A:But not what she promised! B:What did she promise? etc. Occasionally summarize how the argument has changed throughout the exchange. This way you 1) don't play defensive, you play the arbiter 2) you expose onlookers to the primary source instead of content that was pre-digested by alt right media 3) typically the extremist will get frustrated and simply start spouting agressive nonsense and then rage quit the conversation

This shit is why I cut ties with my brother. He said “why are you mad? I’m just asking questions” Nah, he was gaslighting at that point so I was done.

2:55 I honestly get goose bumps how scary you’re able to articulate this phenomenon. Do y’all remember the Ben Shapiro van that bbc interviewer, Ben Shapiro at some point kept trying to make the interviewer say that he was on the left, like for him to admit it. I realize now it’s because he wanted to ability to label him a leftist so he could ignore the serious claims he was bringing to Ben, and this is the “heavy hitter” of the right wing? Lmao

I think I would actually watch West Wing if a chugging guitar riff chimed in every time someone got rhetorically owned.

"Short, quippy, and wrong." Awesomely succinct.

Also, this long answer responded to short quip is Brandolini's law. As per wikipedia: "also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle... The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."

I just realized the public facing short quippy wrong technique is the exact oppoaite to the technique I use for interpersonal conflict resolution. Basically when my friends fought in middle school and demanded I take a side, I yelled at both of them for putting me in that position when I Didn't Even Know What They Were Yelling About. Because that's not fair; you only demand judgement from the ignorant if you don't care whose right, you Just Want To Win And *Feel Validated.* After that, I told my friends I want to talk to them both, seperately, about what happened and go from there. I offered comfort, conversation, and advice, but outright refused to make a call on the dispute. I was not party to its beginning, and would only be party to the resolution if *both* parties asked for that. My friends eventually accepted that I Could Not Be Shoved Into A Kneejerk Decision ( years of bullying will do that to ya, particularly when the thing that makes you a target is strong emotions and high reactivity ) and talked to me, I found out the dispute was some SERIOUS petty bullshit involving a third friend whom they both had a crush on. Party A told party B about their crush on Party C, *unaware* that C had asked B out earlier that day. Blaming party B was pointless, they didn't know about A's crush when asked, and B had been OPEN about their intetest in C for weeks. C and B going out may have *caused* A's hury feelings, but neither could be expected to break up just because A's feelings were hurt.... but that's what A wanted, and wanted ME to enforce it. I refused, told A and B they needed to TALK ABOUT IT, and while I would mediate that conversation by preventing shouting and calmly repeating information when parties talked past one another, I Would Not Excommunicate Anyone Over Something This Goddamned Petty And Would Leave If Either Suggested As Much. Eventually the two of them worked it out, and I started gaining a Relationship Counciler reputation among my peers. Up to graduation day I had couples in various stages of conflict come find me as seperate parties to ask for advice, which was pretty consistantly "You need to talk to the other person about the bad feelings you get while alone." Like... there was more components, but that was always the bedrock. No one respected their SO enough to Trust What They Said When They Said It. In the girls' cases they had a track record to reference, but the boys had the same suspicions Sight Unseen... classic signs of projection. He broke a rule, and now suspects his GF of the same, and *gets mad* when called on his bad behavior. Sometimes it went the other way, like... 5% sometimes. Ultra rare but not impossible, and I would always listen for it.... and be very disappointed when a dude lied about her being unfaithful and eventually confessed to having no proof. You can't pin down a person and make them sit with their own guilt unless they sought you out. You can't provoke self reflection in a drive by. It takes one on one interrogation of thoughts, walking through actions, what was said, what wasn't said, what is supported by the material world, and what is not. All the feelings are real, and deserve the attention needed for resolve. Otherwise the boys keep lying and the girls keep feeling hurt all the time, *preventing* empathy. And that 5% of the time where the gal is the one fucking around and lying? The guy is devastated. Hurting. Dying inside. The few times I saw it, I felt like I was On Watch to prevent them harming themselves or others. I was an unpaid teenager. Wonder WTF the councilers were doing all day.

As a former alt Righter, I can tell you this is how they argue most of the time even I did it alot

I think this is why Jon Stewart was so effective. Jon didn't explain things has his first response, his first response was something along the lines of "You're full of shit!" or "That's fucking monsterous." He would back his statements up with the explanation, but it would always start with a direct contradiction that was equally short and quippy.

I personally never understood why someone would EVER want to go through life with the same beliefs, same points of view, day in, day out. What is so attractive about not having to change your mind? Personally, if I'm wrong about something, I'd like to know it...I'd like to know WHY, and I'd like to rectify that belief if the rationale given (no matter WHO gives it) makes sense. I deliberately expose myself to people who believe differently than me on subjects which are IMPORTANT to me. I want to see what those people have to say. For example, I've been through dozens of apologetics for Christianity...but nothing I've seen has convinced me that a Christian god exists. I'd want to know if there WAS a Christian god, so even now, I keep an ear out for new arguments. And while I might dismiss a Christian using their religion to prop up an anti-abortion or anti-feminism argument, since they haven't proven that I should value what their religious texts have to say about these things...if they made a secular argument, I would take it seriously. It might not change my mind, but I would hear it out. Why are people so afraid of being WRONG? I'm wrong all the time...and I value becoming LESS wrong. Is there some argument for not being open to changing your mind?

the more time i spend on the internet the more accurate this series gets

It's surreal to watch this video and then see how many people have flocked to the comments (without having watched the video) to do exactly what the video is calling out.

Also, there is another way to counter these guys, and it isn't by leaving the field (which they also want.) Simply ask for proof. Nothing else. If they bring out something from a source non-reliable, then ask them if they have this from a NEUTRAL source. To them Neutral = Liberal and they'll try to return to their boxes. Keep them on task. Keep responses short. Ask for context. They're bad at creating it. Don't EVER play nice. But never let yourself get trapped into a response that will get you deplatformed. What they can't handle is having their weapons used against them. There's two ways to win an argument, either never participate (which can work until they start calling their goon squad in to start causing trouble) or use rhetorical judo. Make *THEM* start explaining themselves (They aren't ready for that, and that scares the hell out of them). Draw their weakness out to where your strength can play. Or push them over an edge into a reportable offense. Many see the strategy and leave, some stay and make the MISTAKE, and some will try to actually engage on YOUR rules. But if you catch them slipping be sure as hell to put their noses BACK to the grindstone. They started the conversation with the flaming bag of turd on your doorstep, make them own that. Not by explaining it away, but by making THEM look like the dink that left that bag there without even the common courtesy of ringing the doorbell. *The left has lizard brains too.* It's sad we have to appeal to them, but that is what it is. Welcome to the modern era, the Mad Max era of politics. The Dark Ages. The normie neutrals have the same brains too. Maybe it's time to stop treating the internet like a debate stage with actual rules regarding logical fallacies, and start treating it like a schoolyard. And be ready if this encounter is in real life to take a 5-knuckle sandwich for free. But then they lose and you got them on assault charges. If you must, never throw the first punch but make damn sure you either show you took every step to leave a violent confrontation before throwing the last punch. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the sad state of fucking affairs in the world, and sooner or later something has to break. Hopefully that isn't modern civilization, but sometimes I think that's well since gone, personally.

Reminds me of the "if your criticism is longer than the movie, it's worthless"-crowd... It always takes a second to spout bullshit, It never takes so little to prove it wrong.

It’s incredible to see the subject of the video play out in real time in the comments.

When I was in high school I did this a lot. The worst part was I didn't even know it. It's so baked into the Right's rhetoric that most of them don't even realize they're doing it. Thankfully those days are behind me.

This is so good! I've wanted to describe this "[GRIFTER] DESTROYS COLLEGE SNOWFLAKE" phenomenon for so long but I'm not as articulate so thank you!

5:00 I had a massive argument in that exact structure about IF THERE WAS AGRICULTURE IN AFRICA BEFORE EUROPEAN COLONISATION, NO IM NOT JOKING

This is why I like to also say, simply put "Source? :3" They quickly divulge into other tactics, but learning to force them into switching tactics constantly makes them angry, which is funny. I'll be learning a lot from this series.

One thing I have tried that has worked for me is when someone says something short quipy and wrong, is to ask them HOW they are right. For example: "This lady stole money from people" "How did she steal money" This reframes the conversation as you trying to get a question answered and also makes it clear that what is being said isn't automatically true.

the worst is the double bind of saying you are defensive or sensitive as an insult. if you don't reply with proof that you aren't then they win. if you do reply with proof the fact that you replied contradicts it. cause if you weren't defensive or sensitive then you wouldn't feel the need to respond. you could walk away. these argument tactics suck no matter whose using them.

This has degenerated into just saying "I'm not reading all that" when someone types an argument that requires people to actually engage with it instead of using their ape brains and laugh at the funny man.

This is honestly one of the best videos on all of KZfaq

this is why i got tired of arguing on the internet with people. its always this one guy who has no idea what hes talking about, yet hes so annoying to deal with

Twitter loves to highlight polarizing content, which amplifies this effect.

Know your battles. There is no point in arguing when your opponent refuses to listen and refuses to let you speak. Reality is like a train. Sure, you can try and convince them to get off the tracks all you want, but they are not going to listen. Sometimes, lessons can only be learned through pain and suffering.

It’s best to not engage with them at all. Their entire ideology does not care if they are correct. They can fundamentally know they are wrong. Right wing ideology is the thought process of a bully, and giving a reaction only validates them

There's a fun twitter account I follow called "Gourmet Hot Takes" which screenshots and shares stupid things that the alt-right says. I always got a kick out of it (as you said, liberals like the feeling of putting conservatives in their place) but after seeing this, I'm starting to wonder if that account does more harm than good by still spreading these alt-right sound-bytes.

I’ve given up on the right. I treat them the same way they treat the left

As the right has become even more unstable and radicalized these videos become that much relevant.

These days they just label all the boxes "woke" and call it a day

I figured this out a few years ago, and my tactic now is to flip it on them IF they're genuinely not interested in an honest debate. I'll point out logical fallacies they've used, call them out for inherent biases, and if the opportunity presents itself, accurately call them out for being a certain type of character, i.e nazi or general bigot. If you call them out for being a certain type of character right away without a solid supporting argument, they throw it back at you saying that you just pigeonhole everyone who disagrees with you, even though the rational people in the crowd can see what kind of character they are. But when you get them to blurt out more obvious statements and build your case, and THEN hit them with the callout, it's like they're a fish out of water, they stutter and repeat themselves and just flap about, and give up. And they main thing is that you know you're never going to convince them you're right, like 98% of the time they will never concede, but it's about the audience that watches and makes a decision based on how the debate unfurls.

1) Stay on point 2) Ask Socratic questions 3) Be polite The only true way to beat Reactionaries.

I've found that this also happens a lot of the time in other scenarios. When people just want to feel like you're a bad person, for whatever reason, even if there's no evidence, they'll figure out some way or another to do it.

Best reaction is to force them to explain themselves instead of doing it for them by saying stuff like "Ok, why is that so ?" "How do you know this is true ?" "Where is this information from ?" etc. Eventually you force them to elaborate if they do so - its the right time to correct them.

Thank you for this series. I have talked myself into circles explaining to magats why they have the cognitive range of a 2 year possum carcass on the side of the freeway and now I know why it doesn't matter.

I just avoid socializing on the internet altogether. Wait, shit.

Any logical fallacy can further someone debating in bad faith but probably the biggest red flag that someone is arguing in bad faith is that they rely on PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times). A debater engaging in good faith would at the very least seek to the responses to the PRATTs.

This video made me realize that I was essentially part of the alt-right in middle school

Brazilian reality nowdays. Im exhausted of arguing with those people.

Ahh, the bit with the Historian and PJW is so true, I get really annoyed when I see articles going "This guy got owned!!!"... dude you're not 15.

Hello Black queer person here! Just wanted to say we are new to the channel but you do a great job of checking your privelage at the door! Its also really insigtful to hear a white person break down how dumb white racism is! Been dealing with lots of microagressions and ignorance at university and hearing you competently articulate these points and messges is impactful truly!

I once had a guy argue with me saying that I wasn't from Arkansas. Like what?

There is a beautiful irony in how the comments are going and how people are reacting to them. Was this planned? Putting some hooks in the video to attract the kind of people who answer short, quippy and wrong and getting the viewership to excersise in not playing the game? Cause if so this is the single most brilliant video ever made. Bra-vo

this is why us zoomers started saying "no ❤" to fascists

oh boy time to look in the comment section for reference! *sorts by new*

I was watching a video by SumitoMedia about how Ben Shapiro rose in popularity, and how it abruptyl stopped when HBomberGuy made a video response to his rebuttle, more specifically a skit he did *breaks through wall* "ONE SMALL PROBLEM, SELL THEIR HOUSES TO WHO BEN?!?! FUCKING AQUAMAN?!?!" And that struck me as odd, because that did not make sense to me at the time. Watching this video now, I understand why. He picked one thing out of his argument, and rebutted it with a short, quippy response. And that worked.

I have had more success bullying conservatives into accepting my viewpoints than convincing them through cogent speech. The conservative mind seems to love to submit to strong authority figures. I grew up in a rough neighborhood. I was poor, and destitute. No one ever picked on me though because i was always willing to fight. Its very easy to fight anyone anyplace when you have nothing to lose... Its also easy to fight when you believe you have everything to lose. Conservatives live in this fearful world where they will slip down the social ladder. These people don't seem to understand reason. When passions are high and fear turns to anger, the degree of intelligence drops. No sense in talking rationally to these people. When you use bully tactics against them they don't know how to react. Their world view crumbles before them as their intellectual weakness gets mirrored back at them. How could they condemn you for using the same tactics they employ? Worse yet, not only do they use the tactics but they have something of value to say as well. They can tune you out but they can't tune out themselves. Bully them with facts. Troll them with intelligence and for gods sake people, don't back down. I still remember the blood gushing from the nose of that first asshole that tried to bully me. The left has this sad reputation of being spineless and its this pretense that allows these sheep to elect the wolf as their Shepard. Be the sheepdog ready to tear the wolf to pieces.

this video and the comments just confirming everything you said are so satisfying

I typically like to flip the conversation on its head and bully the conservative into playing defense. My go-to line is "nice try tho." I also like using the typical conservative line "facts don't care about your feelings" against them. If they're gonna be short, quippy, and wrong, the least I can do is be short, quippy, and right. Other lines: "source?" and "whataboutism. doesn't negate the point. nice try tho".

This video is what I think of every time some right winger on Twitter says "pronouns in bio. Opinion discarded."

THIS IS REDDIT EVERY DAY. Stop taking 1/6 of my rebuttal and responding to it. Respond to all of it

I was arguing with an internet racist and he just dismissed me as a “collectivist goy”

I wish there was a *little* more time spent on the ending, because the "you don't have to play" message at the end can easily be interpreted as the "say nothing" and the "short, quippy, wrong" thing has no rebuttal, making them appear correct (as addressed earlier in the video, ~2:26). Knowing what TO DO is often more valuable than knowing what NOT to do.

"Nobody in those boxes are worth listening to" To be fair, I did this when I debating January 6th with a guy who had Confederate flags all over his Facebook page.

You hit the nail on the head with this series in a way I haven't seen elsewhere. I can observe this in my daily life.

Props for referencing the drastically game-changing 1960 televised debate

This is why my new strategy for dealing with the right is to accuse them of being pedos repeatedly

I've noticed that a new version of this is people saying you're "yapping" when you give a long explanation, as a way of dismissing any detailed responses, basically saying, if you can't explain it simply and quickly then you shouldn't be listened to, this is actually very effective for reactionaries who do the short quippy and wrong thing because by declaring that your yapping they destroy your social standing in the forum. Making themselves look like winners.