On Tuesday, April 30th, the courts finally convicted the Minneapolis police officer who killed Justine Ruszczyk. After a month-long trial, the shooter, a jury convicted “Mr. Noor” on charges of third-degree murder and manslaughter. These together carry a maximum sentence of around 35 years, but he will likely not receive it.
Are you struggling to convince your friend on why Donald Trump is the worst and most racist president alive? Or maybe you want to convince them on why he is our Lord and Savior. Whatever the case, this article will prepare you on how you can win those arguments and convince all your close family and friends to see things from your point of view. No more stupid liberals blowing up your twitter feeds, no more Hitler-esque MAGA supporters walking around the streets. With these tips on how to beat any political opponent across the spectrum, you will become unstoppable.
How to Win Any Argument as a Conservative
To beat somebody in an argument, you are going to need a couple of weeks to prepare. The first step when preparing to argue with somebody who is not conservative is to look in your mirror every morning and tell yourself that everybody else is a liberal snowflake. When arguing with a liberal snowflake, they are going to cry 100% of the time. It is pretty much guaranteed. Doing this will give you the motivation and confidence you need to destroy that liberal.
Furthermore, to continue your preparation, you have to listen to Ben Shapiro every night before you go to bed. Make sure to memorize every single one of his lines in every video you watch. I recommend watching the videos titled “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Crazy Libtard” or similar.
In the Debate
Now that you have prepared for your argument, you are ready to seek out somebody to destroy. Upon finding a person, make sure the first thing you mention is how great of a president Donald Trump is. This is going to trigger and shock them. To illustrate this, their hands will be sweating, they will be profusely shaking, and their first reaction will be to call you a racist. This is precisely the kind of response you want. You now have the upper hand and are ready to obliterate them in any argument.
Some other things you may want to mention:
- Liberalism is a disease.
- If you are pro-choice, you are a baby killer. Therefore, any other argument you make is invalid.
- If you do not support Israel, you hate the United States. Oh, and you also hate Jews too.
- ISIS will take over the United States if we do not relentlessly bomb the Middle East to find our freedom.
- If you do not stand for the flag, you are quite literally the worst person in the world and deserve to die.
- Facts don’t care about your feelings.
- Back the blue.
- If you aren’t with us, you are against us.
- It is your duty to die for your country.
- Transgender people are mentally ill.
- Illegal immigrants are murderers and rapists.
- Allowing refugees into the country is the same as allowing Isis into the country.
- The Confederate flag is not racist.
- If you hate the government so much, why don’t you just leave?
- Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Closing the Debate
After presenting all of these facts, you want to hit them with the “libtard.” There is no recovery for them once you call them a “libtard.” After calling them that, walk away and do not pay attention to any single word they say. You have won. Congratulations. Go home and celebrate by grabbing a beer and putting on some Fox News in your trailer home.
How to Win Any Argument as a Liberal
First, educate yourself, learning that both conservatives and libertarians are two sides of the same coin. After all, libertarianism and conservatism are both alt-right political ideologies that resemble fascism. Once you recognize this, it is easily assumed at this point that you are morally a better person than everybody else. Libertarians and conservatives are the most hateful and racist people out there. To make it even worse, they hate poor people. You want people to have affordable healthcare and a stable social safety net; they don’t. They honestly do not even exist outside of the internet. How could they? You have never associated with them in your life.
After you realize that you are better than everybody else is when you can start listening to comedians reuse the same Donald Trump jokes over and over again. God damn, those jokes are so funny. They never get old. When you are around your buddies, make sure to repeat those jokes because they are so damn hilarious. It is not like they watched the same John Oliver episode you watched last night.
In the Debate
Things to say in a debate:
- Climate change will kill everybody within the next 36 hours.
- Donald Trump is racist.
- Hillary won the popular vote so she should be president.
- Donald Trump is orange.
- Russia hacked the elections.
- Donald Trump is sexist.
- Kavanaugh is a rapist.
- Donald Trump is misogynistic.
- End the wars except when Donald Trump wants to, then blow up Muslims.
- Donald Trump is a murderer.
- Abolish the electoral college.
- Donald Trump is literally Hitler.
- Making at least $30 an hour is a fundamental human right.
- Donald Trump is a Nazi.
- My body my choice.
- Donald Trump is a baby.
- Hate speech is murder.
Closing the Debate
The simplest way for you to win and effectively close out the debate is to call your opponent a racist and to start crying immediately. They will be taken aback, and be at a loss for words. They also may make fun of you, but that is further proving your point that you are the better person. Never forget that you should tune out anything points they try to make. After all, those points are inherently racist and have no real value.
How to Win Any Argument as a Libertarian
As you scratch your neckbeard with “Liberty Defined” by Ron Paul in your hand, you have realized that everybody is a statist, even other libertarians. Libertarians are not libertarian enough, and some libertarians are too radical (@ ancaps). “Everybody is an NPC except for me,” is what you tell yourself as you look at your diverse collection of literature ranging from Murray Rothbard all the way to Milton Friedman. You have all the answers already. You do not even need this article to know how to win an argument. Friedrich Hayek taught you everything you need to know, thus, you are prepared.
In the Debate
I know you already know everything, but here are some things you may want to mention in your debate in case you forget:
- Taxation is theft.
- End the Fed.
- Legalize all drugs.
- No victim no crime.
- Make fun of people who say “But who will build the roads?.” This is an effective and hilarious tactic because you know deep down that the private sector will be able to handle the roads. God, you are so funny.
- Gun control is literally murder.
- The free market will solve all problems.
- Libertarianism is an objective and moral truth.
- If somebody ends up leaving libertarianism, they were never a true libertarian in the first place because they must not have read Murray Rothbard. The words of Murray Rothbard will convert anybody to the one true objective truth.
- The only good communist is a dead communist.
- Socialism kills.
- There is no such thing as a good cop.
- We live in a police state.
- But what if the child consents?
Closing the Debate
At the end of the day, you want people to do as they please as long as they are not directly hurting somebody. Your opponent obviously does not agree with this, however, so the last thing you need to do to ensure your victory is it call them “statist scum.” Statists are parasites that leech off others through the power of the state. Statists want to take away your freedoms and are the equivalent to Satan. Thus, make sure your opponent knows what kind of filth they are.
How to Win Any Argument as a Socialist
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Repeat this phrase over and over in your head. Repeat it until that is all you can think about. These words will transcend your mind to an intellect never seen before. Let’s be honest here; you can’t just be a socialist. You have to go all the way and hit some more radical levels. Become an anarcho-communist, an anarcho-syndicalist, or even an anarcho-primitivist. Embrace more radical ideas than socialism. You are weak if you don’t. This is like when a libertarian is too afraid to become an anarcho-capitalist. Like seriously, stop being a wimp and just go full communist. Communism or nothing is what I like to say.
In the Debate
Things to mention in a debate:
- Capitalism kills.
- The world sucks because of capitalism.
- Capitalism is quite literally the worst.
- Real socialism has never been tried.
- Scarcity is a hoax.
- Antifa stands for anti-fascist, so they must be good and do no wrong.
- Kill the 1%.
- Israel deserves death.
- Noam Chomsky’s word is the true word of God.
- All cops are bastards.
- Sex work is exploitation and is a direct result of capitalism.
- Kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong.
Closing the Debate
The easiest way for you to win an argument here is to beat the living hell out of your opponent. You see this tactic with Antifa and kids on college campuses, and they always seem to face little to no repercussions. You can’t lose the argument if your hateful opponent is incapacitated.
The following subsections will show how you can beat unconventional political ideologies.
How to Beat a Fascist in an Argument
Look, if you can’t beat a fascist in an argument by yourself, then there is no hope for you. Just get out of politics and never look back.
How to Beat a Maoist/Stalinist in an Argument
Mao Zedong and Stalin both killed millions upon millions of people. Again, if you can’t win this argument, get out of politics. Losing here is almost as embarrassing as losing to a fascist.
How to beat an Anarcho-Primitivist in an Argument
Bring up the famed anarcho-primitivist, Ted Kaczynski. With that, your argument has been won. You’re welcome.
How to beat an Anarcho-Communist in an Argument
Tell these commies that anarchy and communism can’t go together. It is impossible. Communism=big government. Anarchy=no government. Therefore, anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. Congratulations, you just made an entire political ideology obsolete.
Sticking to the outline on how to win an argument while maintaining a specific political ideology as well as adhering to the framework on how to beat obscure ideologies, you will become unstoppable. There is not a single political argument that you can lose. This outline will work in every single circumstance. Want to run for president? I can guarantee that if you follow the steps I laid out for your debates, you will get at least 99% of the votes.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk. Now you know how to obliterate and shatter anybody in an argument about politics. If there is one thing you can take away from this article, I want it to be this: if you ever feel like you are losing an argument, cover your ears, call your opponent an idiot, and walk away. It works like a charm. It is a cheat code that works on every single argument, even non-political arguments. Now, go out there and destroy some idiots.
71 Republic takes pride in distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.
By Ian Brzeski | United States
Disclaimer: When I refer to Republicans and Democrats, I’m not talking about every single person who aligns with the Republican or Democratic party. Rather, I am talking about their platforms as a whole as well as their “leaders” and hypocritical followers.
Both the Republican and Democratic platform are hypocritical in every sense of the term. Whether it is their agenda or on specific topics at hand, they allow themselves to fall onto multiple contradictions and fallacies in their arguments. For example, Republicans and Democrats both display hypocrisy when it comes to the issues of guns and immigration. Republicans are quick to push their agenda against illegal immigration when an illegal kills somebody because, according to them, illegal immigration allows those who like to murder and rape people to enter the US. They argue that if we had stronger deportation measures and a border wall, then many individual citizens such as Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive. Democrats are quick to push their agenda for gun control when a shooting happens because, according to them, guns and gun owners are dangerous and often kill many people. They say how if we had more gun control, then many of the victims in the mass shootings would still be alive such as the students who passed in Parkland.
Republicans defend guns by saying that Democrats are just trying to push their agenda when a horrible tragedy such as a mass shooting happens. Republicans say it is vile and disgusting how Democrats would try to push their agenda on gun control instead of showing respect to the victims. They claim that it is a societal problem and not a gun problem. People kill people; guns do not kill people, and besides, people are just going to get guns regardless.
Democrats defend illegal immigration by saying that Republicans are just trying to push their agenda when a horrible tragedy such as the murder of a girl from Iowa happens. Democrats say it is vile and disgusting how Republicans would try to push their agenda on stronger borders instead of showing respect to the victims. They claim that it is a societal problem and not an illegal immigration problem. People kill people; illegals are not the only people who kill people in this country.
Republicans and Democrats make the same argument when substituting the word(s) “guns” with “illegal immigration.” Who knew that the majority of Republicans and Democrats are not that much different? They use the same argument on various issues. They even both bash each other on how they portray their stances. To an extent, the parties also fall subject to the slippery slope fallacy when describing how guns/illegal immigration are the causes of the death of various people.
The slippery slope fallacy is a logical fallacy that implies that a small action will lead to a much more significant action with enormous consequences. Saying that having less secure borders will lead to more murders is a solid example of this fallacy and the same goes for saying that the sale of firearms will lead to more murders.
Who is the Bigger Hypocrite?
Most Republicans are bigger hypocrites than the Democrats. They claim to support small government except for when it comes to:
- The wall across the Mexican border
- The Space Force
- A stronger governmental police force
- A massive military
- Military parades
- The War on Drugs
- The War on Terror
- Trump regulating social media
- And many more
The only difference with the Republicans and the Democrats here is that they disagree with what should be funded by the government. For every government program defunded by Republicans, another government program is funded that fits the Republicans’ agenda. At least the Democrats openly admit that they are for a bigger and stronger government.
Democrats could just as quickly say the phrase “Taxation is theft,” and it would still have the same meaning when Republicans say it. Establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans are the same; they are all pro-war and pro-big government hawks. Obama openly says he is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and then proceeds to bomb more countries than any of his predecessors. The Republicans claim to be for smaller government and pro-life, yet when Senator Rand Paul introduces a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, the bill does not pass despite Republicans having the majority in the House and the Senate. Does this sound like a small government platform?
The fact of the matter is that the majority of the Republicans preach a pro-liberty position, but their actions and ideas say otherwise. However, not every single Republican is one of these establishment politicians. There are still few Republicans out there who stay true to their pro-liberty and small government agenda, such as Senator Rand Paul, Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Justin Amash, and Austin Petersen to name a few.
Stuck in the Same Cycle
Regardless of who is in charge, the government still become stronger, taxes and spending increase, and our national debt continues to grow. We have a “pro-liberty” president who keeps fighting the war on terror, keeps funding the war on drugs, has the notion that tariffs are good for the economy, and now wants to start printing money to get us out of our national debt. Nothing of recent has changed regarding the United States. Voting Republican or voting Democrat will be practically voting for the same person the majority of the time. Not voting for a third party because you are afraid that it is giving away a vote to the “rival” candidate may be one of the worst excuses to use because either way you are most likely voting for big government establishment hawks.
As a result of this two-party system and hypocritical nature of the parties, the government continually grows into a stronger, more coercive force that inhibits on our personal freedoms to make decisions for us. Thinking that voting third party is a waste is a dangerous ideology. We will never see a real change by always voting in these establishment candidates. We will have the same problems that we continuously complain about, nothing will get changed, we will continue to stay in the same cycle that we have been going through, and people are too blind to realize this.
Republicans and Democrats have the false sense that they are pitted against each other. There are other options out there, and people need to realize that. People need to stop voting based on parties and need to start voting based on principle. Watch a debate between Republicans and Democrats, and it is easy to see that the discussion just turns into a name calling blame game. It is one of the most pathetic things a person could ever see. Their arguments have no real substance or conviction, and they always seem to attack the person as an individual and not their ideas.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers” – Socrates
Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter. We are always going to be stuck in a never ending cycle if people do not stop blindly following party positions. It does not matter whether you identify as a Conservative, Progressive, Libertarian, or Socialist. Do your research and vote for who you think is going to bring about the most significant possible change to our crooked establishment system. Don’t vote for somebody based on their party or if they are a lesser evil, vote for somebody you believe in.
Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
Thomas Calabro | United States
Perhaps one of the most polarizing debates in our political environment is how to prevent crime from happening. This is a legitimate issue to debate as we desire security from threats against us. But the fear of crime usually leads us to the inclination of sacrificing our constitutional freedoms for “security”. For most of these cases, the inclination is utilized by politicians who harp on these emotions to instill a greater requirement to implement their policies. They wish to be the heroes that stopped crime and saved our society violence by providing more tools for the local and federal governments, and seizing our rights to privacy, to bear arms, and to live peacefully.
There are those who oppose these policies and call for protecting our constitutional rights, these so called “heroes” rebuke by delegitimize the rights and liberties being violated. Those rights are portrayed as a risk for flourishing more crime, and are not even protected by the constitution. If this tactic of disparaging their opponents argument fails their next move is to simplify the argument to this context to either preserving liberty or obtaining security. But rather than using more direct approaches that sacrifices our rights, we should focus on the indirect approach of not creating the crime in the first place.
We should not support policies that create instability in the world, and lead to insurgency groups retaliating against us for creating chaos. It is easier to understand why radical groups rise up to attack an intruding country when you think in terms of China invading the US. This is a point that many view as equating the US to terrorists, but should be seen as an acknowledgment that many will react to situations in similar ways. Viewing those in the Middle East as different from us detracts the ability to fully understand their actions as very similar to what ours would have been if we were in that same scenario. We would not end terrorism by detracting from our current interventionist foreign policy, as that would likely not be the case. However, reducing instability in the world would prevent more groups from rising from power vacuums, especially those that are provided arms by the US, that will be used later against our troops.
We should start asking “Why” a perpetrator would commit a heinous crime rather than “How.” Looking at the psychological, social, and cultural issues of a group, and understanding why people from this group commit violent crimes, is a reasonable way to notice a pattern that ultimately leads to violence. Yet many refuse to look in this way and instead focus on the tools used in the process. The idea of prohibiting the use of this item from some, or even all, and hoping to stop a plotted attempt has grown popular in todays society, providing a “quick fix” that will supposedly save the day. But this not only threatens the individual liberty of each law abiding American, it also may have unintended consequences, simply leading some to find other ways to obtain these goods and perpetrate acts of evil. By looking at the causes of acts of violence, we may find a more disturbing fact in our society that drives people to take the lives of others, and create new strategies to fix this permanently.
Finally we should question whether the crime is really harmful. We should be a country with citizens that abide to the laws, but the laws that we follow must be reasonable and follow the very principles of our country. We must understand that not all laws truly follow the principles of this country, and to keep them around is to approve of their purpose in our country. If we are to uphold the principles of our Country to make the US a symbol of liberty, we should look at our past mistakes of infringing on American’s freedoms to make sure they are corrected in our present and will never happen again in our future.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.
By Andrew Lepore | United States
Robocops, flying hover bikes, AI facial recognition, million dollar patrol cars, and totalitarianism coming to a city near you!
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, the economic and cultural capital of the Middle-east. The land of endless shopping malls, superhighways, man-made islands, and high tech futuristic gadgetry.
But behind all the lights and the noise, Dubai reveals its true form: a totalitarian police state ruthlessly controlled by absolute dictator Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and his high tech militarized police force.
On the surface, Dubai may seem like a modern free market utopia, but it in reality is far from it. Every aspect of the lives of the city-state’s subjects are governed by a set of draconian laws with little more tolerance than its Islamist neighbors.
Freedom of the press as well as free speech are basically non-existent. It is illegal to criticize both the absolute ruler and Islam. Also, it is illegal to be gay, or to use a list of swears, insults or “rude gestures” that the state defines. It is furthermore illegal for unmarried couples to live together, have sex, and—even for married couples—to show public signs of affection. Tattooing is banned, as well as vaping, and alcohol is restricted to hotel bars only. Not to mention that if the police suspect you of a crime, you are guilty until proven innocent.
The police state ruthlessly enforces the drug war — with even testing positive for marijuana (Foreigners are randomly drug tested upon arrival) carrying a punishment of a mandatory 4 year minimum. And on top of that, you can bet whatever socially authoritarian laws there are in place in the United States, are also in place in Dubai.
But how does the police state actually attempt to enforce such restricting laws on a population of over 3 million people? A massive police force exists with an even more massive budget. There is also a blanket of surveillance over the whole city-state.
With an extremely wealthy, densely concentrated population, and an absolute ruler with the free rein to implement new government programs at the snap of a finger, Dubai, among other city states in the UAE, seems to be the ideal testing grounds for the police states of the future.
Private government contractors and authoritarians alike have praised Dubai’s police state. For example, Singapore based company OTSAW, which holds a large scale government contract to implement high tech security measures, has praised the Dubai model as “Groundbreaking for the future of police surveillance in large cities”. Even Donald Trump Jr. was happy to praise Dubai’s absolute dictator on a trip to the city-state last year; “The incredible vision Sheikh Mohammed has been able to put forward for this country is truly awe-inspiring,” he said.
Over the past two decades, Dubai has invested a ridiculous sum of money in constructing the world’s most high tech police force. They now have driver-less miniature patrol cars, armed with facial recognition that can identify “undesirables”. Then, they can release a drone to follow the suspect wherever the car is unable to go. Robocops patrol the street with AI technology. Flying hover bikes double as autonomous drones. They even have a fleet of super patrol cars totaling in the tens of millions, including Bugattis and Lamborghinis.
The city is blanketed in tens of thousands of AI CCTV cameras which can recognize and track individuals as well as vehicles. They can also determine if an individual is engaging in “suspicious behavior”. The police are trained in military tactics and armed to the teeth with military style gear and weapons; As well as in possession of a fleet of mine resistant armored vehicles and tanks. There are also hundreds of non-uniformed secret police constantly patrolling the streets watching for the slightest violations.
This all sounds like something out of a thin blue liner’s dream. Just how far will the thin blue line crowd take police power here in the US?
The United States police presence in every day life has been growing exponentially, and shows little sign of slowing down. In the 1990s, the Department of Defense authorized the 1033 program to supply local law enforcement with surplus military equipment. But a turning point came after 9/11, when the Department of Homeland Security began handing out grants to law enforcement agencies for the purchase of brand new military weaponry from private suppliers. Since then, they have dished out $5 billion in surplus military equipment and $34 in DHS grants. This is not far off from Germany’s entire defense budget.
Not surprisingly, since these programs began, there has been an unprecedented explosion in SWAT team deployments across the country. In the 1980s there were 3,000 SWAT deployments per year. Now, there are 50,000-80,000, despite the fact that violent crime is at a historic low. When you give the state tools of oppression, they will use them, no matter how trivial the legal infraction.
Despite police getting such immense federal grants, a 77% acquittal rate of any wrongdoing, and the full support of the state behind them, people still think there is a “war on cops”. Propagandists such as David Grossman, the self proclaimed “killogist” training American law enforcement across the country, peddles the lie that there is a war on cops.
As he quotes, “The number of cops that have been murdered in the line of duty has skyrocketed. The systematic murder, ambush, and execution of cops has become the norm”. This is simply false. In 2017, the number of police officers murdered was the second lowest in 50 years. The lie is a very dangerous narrative to push.
When people give the police these, well, alternative facts, they began to view the citizen as the enemy. They may act in ways that they would not have. When one hears that the towns and cities are war zones, he or she will use war-like tactics.
This way of thinking will result in the Dubai police state model’s application here at home. People really do think that violent crime is exploding. They really do believe in a war on cops, and want to equip and fund them more. Most people do value security over freedom.
The coming of a technocratic police state is nearly inevitable. And the people will be begging for it. The thin blue line doesn’t end, it extends further and further. It goes until it crushes all of our remaining liberties under the boot of law and order.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.