Person 1: "I think heterosexuality should be the norm for society."
Person 2: "I think the norm for society should shift toward no sexual norms pertaining to orientation."
What is the best argument you can muster against Person 2? I'm asking seriously. Imagine you're debating this with someone who isn't a retard.
Summarizing the responses. . .
(1) The "Natural Law" Argument
Attack the conceptualization of sex as an end unto itself (pleasure) and assert sex as a concept according to its proper end, which is reproduction. A society that does not establish its norms on this functional basis, where a norm is a means to an end (survival and longevity), will perish. Pleasure is not a functional end, and this can be observed in pleasure-obsessed people who organize their life with a priority on maximizing pleasure. These individuals will decline in every conceivable way; society is just an aggregate of individuals.
Thanks: @Portmanure
(2) The Consequentialist Argument
Present the historical data concerning groups (movements, cults, etc.), cities, or larger organizations who embraced human liberation from sexual norms. Without exception, it has bad consequences. Furthermore, you can fine-grain the negative consequences to support specific claims, i.e., "This debauchery always results in a populace that becomes subjugated by its government."
Thanks: @KosherHiveKicker
(3) The Constitutive Argument
The concept of a society is predicated on norms. Norms constitute societies, so it is incoherent to talk about societies without norms. From here, you could point to data like Unwin's study on the correlation between civilization and sexual norms (societies with slacker sexual norms either never develop any greater sophistication, or they decline and fail).
Thanks: @Stompfaggots
(4) The "Every Single Time" Technique
You're dealing with Jews. Never forget. Remember Uncle Adolf's experience with them. There are better and worse ways to proceed. Whatever you win, you'll have to re-win the following day, and the day after that, so on and so forth. Implied here is the need for a final solution.
Thanks: @Dingo
(5) The Simple Approach
Shoot them in the face with a shotgun.
Thanks: @DitchPig
(6) The Unintelligible Approach
Just move your mouth and make noise until they can't take it anymore.
You aren't going to get anywhere with those arguments. Anyone who argues for faggots does not care about logic, long term effects, or right and wrong. They only care about emotions, appearing "virtuous", and siding with good kind people while attacking bad mean people.
When debating or arguing, stop trying to convince yourself you won. You have to convince them, and on their terms. And if you don't, then all you've done is wasted your own time.
This is the argument to use - There are statistics that say 87% of faggots admit they were sexually abused as children. 93% of dikes admit to being the victim of sexual abuse. That's only how many will admit it. Which means that nearly 100% of gays have been sexually abused.
Argue that faggots and dikes deserve justice. Argue that faggots and dikes are traumatised victims. Argue that if anyone celebrates faggotry, that they are celebrating abuse and trauma. And most importantly, argue that if anyone does not side with you, then they are evil, they support and/or cover up abuse, that they are the enemy of all gays, and that if they don't openly and constantly declare that gays are traumatised victims who deserve justice, then they will be ostracised, hated, and attacked by everyone.
You don’t engage with those dipshits. If you argue then you give even the slightest credibility to them because you feel the need to prove your truth. The answer is you call them an idiot and walk away.
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 16:21:19 ago (+1/-0)
I believe you might have taken just ONE of my TWO points. Actually my primary argument was to have THEM articulate a basis for why something is true (as a rebuttal). Such as:
"I'm interested, can you please help me understand how an increase in young homosexuals is good for the children or society?"
The second point (especially if they are in a crowd) came in because if you follow such an approach you will best them almost every time because they can't articulate the basis (such as "If A, then B") for what they actually believe, you will find yourself attacked by "anonymous" sources or just right there out of rage.
I have had many discussions with "high level" people and while they often admit they can't raise a basis but will proceed as if their conclusion is true anyway. Such as:
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 18:02:22 ago (+1/-0)
I know. I was starting to get halfway humorous at that point, and I was fully into the humor by the end of the wrap-up. I agree that I short-changed your complete post.
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 19:09:17 ago (+1/-0)
short-changed
Not at all. It was a good thread and I enjoyed reading both of them (including the work you did on the summary one). I just wanted to be complete, is all.
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 2 points 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 16:35:25 ago (+2/-0)
Anyone who argues for faggots does not care about logic, long term effects, or right and wrong. They only care about emotions, appearing "virtuous", and siding with good kind people while attacking bad mean people.
When debating or arguing, stop trying to convince yourself you won.
You have to convince them, and on their terms. And if you don't, then all you've done is wasted your own time.
This is the argument to use -
There are statistics that say 87% of faggots admit they were sexually abused as children.
93% of dikes admit to being the victim of sexual abuse.
That's only how many will admit it. Which means that nearly 100% of gays have been sexually abused.
Argue that faggots and dikes deserve justice.
Argue that faggots and dikes are traumatised victims.
Argue that if anyone celebrates faggotry, that they are celebrating abuse and trauma.
And most importantly, argue that if anyone does not side with you, then they are evil, they support and/or cover up abuse, that they are the enemy of all gays, and that if they don't openly and constantly declare that gays are traumatised victims who deserve justice, then they will be ostracised, hated, and attacked by everyone.
That's the only way you can win the argument.
[ + ] MasklessTheGreat
[ - ] MasklessTheGreat 2 points 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 15:00:29 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 16:21:19 ago (+1/-0)
"I'm interested, can you please help me understand how an increase in young homosexuals is good for the children or society?"
The second point (especially if they are in a crowd) came in because if you follow such an approach you will best them almost every time because they can't articulate the basis (such as "If A, then B") for what they actually believe, you will find yourself attacked by "anonymous" sources or just right there out of rage.
I have had many discussions with "high level" people and while they often admit they can't raise a basis but will proceed as if their conclusion is true anyway. Such as:
"You're right, but I have a business to run"
or some other bullshit post-hoc argument.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 18:02:22 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 19:09:17 ago (+1/-0)
Not at all. It was a good thread and I enjoyed reading both of them (including the work you did on the summary one). I just wanted to be complete, is all.
[ + ] Sleazy
[ - ] Sleazy 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 14:51:22 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] ICantBeArsed
[ - ] ICantBeArsed 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 14:10:38 ago (+1/-0)
Faggots die out.
There is no value in being a fag in the circle of life.
[ + ] registereduser
[ - ] registereduser 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 13:51:48 ago (+1/-0)
They should be burned alive for entertainment.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 4 monthsDec 8, 2024 13:54:38 ago (+1/-0)
Maybe we can expand the "Simple" approach to the "We're Past Talking" approach.