Two ways to argue more effectively with a political opponent

Originally published at:

1 Like

They left out the best way.



If you want to “win” an “argument” against your “opponent” then just needle them. For example, if they are making homophobic points start bringing up preachers and politicians who were anti-gay and turned out to be gay, then imply (or directly state) the person you are arguing against is closeted and rebut every point they make by telling them to get it over with and suck a dick*. When they get mad, you win, because that’s how arguments work.

(* Yes, I’ve assumed they are male)

If you are really a ruthless Machiavellian trying to implement progressive politics by any means don’t waste your time on some random individual, spend your time trying to get out the youth vote.

But if you love someone despite their awfulness and want to understand them better, listen to them without judgement for a while. We don’t have to repackage things like actually listening to other people as military tactics to expand our empire of people who agree with us.


And if you lack a suitable “opponent”, just find the nearest person who agrees with you on practically every issue and start ascribing to them some random loathsome opinion. That way, you can still make them mad, and you can still win!


Charge them for it


The third way being, of course, the Jennifer Lawrence OK GIF.


I thought I heard a podcast about this, and it turned out that someone had falsified a ton of data during the experiment/interviews, and that it pretty much threw out the whole thing.

I wanna say Radiolab but I can’t find it.


I don’t believe you. Now let’s see if you can convince me.


Here’s one way: If the discourse seemed to be getting out of hand, I would regain control by bonking my opponent over the head with this fucking 15 foot giant inflato-banana. You already know what I would say just before doing so.

The other way: Just too crazy to consider.


This would have been very handy if it had been posted last week. Change my mind. /s



You’re thinking about You Are Not So Smart (YANSS), and the technique is called Deep Canvassing. Also, it’s not quite as simple as “it’s been debunked”. If I remember correctly (a big IF), the research was legitimate, but the data were then taken (bought?) by someone else and partially falsified or selectively used for their research. So the original research was done again… And there was a measurable effect, though the whole thing was tainted by the falsification. Complicated. I believe the original podcast was YANSS #80.


Or just kick an animal because hey it feels good when the haterade wears off.

Something something wah wah dead cat on the table wah wah.

Dave Barry had it down.


So good!!

Yes you do.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.