When trying to persuade others there are two venues:

1. Privately
2. Publicly

If you genuinely care about persuading the person you are talking to, you should never attempt to do so with others present. Not even one other person.

Direct persuasion must be done privately as your main opponent is not the intellect of the other individual, but their ego.

And not just their ego, but your own. It has been said that to change a man's mind you must first convince him that you are truly his friend.

A friend is someone who loves you unconditionally and does not need you to see things the way they do in order to remain their friend.

Your chief goal when trying direct, private persuasion should be a genuine loving connection, and that genuine loving connection should shine as the utmost goal of the conversation.

You must be ok with them seeing things differently. You must be willing to listen actively--meaning listen intently to what they're saying, and repeat back what they're saying in your own words until they are satisfied you have understood their perspective genuinely and they grow quiet in anticipation of your reply.

You must never say "I understand, but." Never. You must SHOW them you understand via active listening. This may seem tedious at first, but you'd be surprised, it's actually the fastest way from point A to point B.

You must also never scoff at their words, roll your eyes, or do anything at all that seems to imply that you do not have the utmost respect both for their intelligence, and their character.

It goes a long, long way to preface nearly EVERYTHING you say with something along the lines of "Before I say this, I just want to make sure you know that this is just what I think right now. I admit the possibility that I may be wrong, and I don't expect you to see it the same way, and if you don't, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'll explain as much as you want, but if you want me to stop and explain something a little more in depth I'm happy to do that. I just want to make sure that you know that my relationship with you is more important to me than being right, and if you have a different perspective on it that you want to share, I promise this is a safe space where you'll be heard" or some form of that at least.

Then, when presenting your ideas, never use absolute statements. Preface answering each question with things like "I know I could be wrong, but it seems to me that..."

It also helps to draw on things you know they already feel or believe to draw comparisons, but again, always be ready to soften it with qualifying statements to prove that you're not set in your way of thinking and are still open to changing your mind, and be ready to admit that the comparison is not perfect, only helpful to your purpose of helping them to understand you.

"To make friends, shew thyself friendly."

If you want to inspire open-mindedness, shew thyself open-minded.

Do not bother telling people you are open-minded, just like you shouldn't bother telling them you understand. Show them via your conversation that you are, in fact, open-minded. And that you are not, in fact, a threat.

It also helps to never suggest there is something you have known for a long time that they were unaware of. If they're unaware of something, it helps to let them know that up until just recently, so were you, or that you had learned it long ago but had forgotten it but something recently had just reminded you of it.

This helps them to avoid feeling uninformed, and thus foolish and defensive.

Statements like "You know, I always thought that too. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me for the longest time. And I don't know, that still might be the case but here is something I found/heard/saw/read/thought of recently that has me thinking otherwise..."

Ask yourselves, do I love the person I'm trying to persuade? Do I love them enough to try my very best not to trigger their ego? Am I willing to be patient and kind and express clearly that my good relationship with them is the most important thing?

If you can answer yes to those questions, then by all means, make the attempt. And may God be with you. But if not, I don't recommend going there. If pride, not love, is your main goal. If saving the country and the world is more important to you than making them feel loved, I say you're not ready yet. You're better off working on loving that person more first. Serving them. Being with them. Then when you know you could suppress your ego, feel free to go there.

Now, there IS a place for public persuasion, and it's called debate.

And I do NOT recommend engaging in it with someone you love. Ever.

Granted, you should love everyone, but we know that's not possible and seeing that public debate is a great way to persuade, you should not shy away from it.

That said, when you debate publically, you must realize who it is you are trying to persuade, and it's not the person you're debating.

In Arthur Schopenhauer's book "The Art of Controversy" he explains that it is not the person you're debating you should seek to persuade, because the presence of an audience and the effect that has on both your ego and that of your opponent, makes the task too difficult.

No, in public debate, your target is not your opponent, but the audience itself.

The goal in public debate, quite simply, is to "come off better."

What does that mean?

Simply put, it means to never seem frazzled or exasperated, or upset. You should at all times seem cool as a cucumber. Never show emotion, if you can help it.

Certainly no negative emotion, but also, never laugh at an opponent's remark, no matter how ridiculous, or even how funny it is.

Laughing shows weakness, nerves, and a lack of focus, even when you're trying to act as if you're laughing because the other person said something ridiculous. It doesn't work, and neither does smiling.

Think of Hillary Clinton cackling on that stage as GEOTUS circled her like a hungry lion during his debates with her with that permanent scowl etched on his face.

It signals submission, and all that matters in a debate is what you SIGNAL. If you want a master class in public debate you need look no further than Donald John Trump, the greatest debater of our lifetimes (until his debate with Biden--which I believe he threw on purpose as part of the plan). Jordan Peterson has also become wonderful at this over the past few years, and so has that Crowder guy from Louder with Crowder (although you'll notice with Crowder, that even though he's in public, he usually brings them to his table under a tent with a tiny bit more privacy, and he's really good flattering people, joking with people, and getting them to feel safe admitting they've been wrong in some way. He could be more careful but he's really coming along, I have to admit).

The winners of debates are not those with the best ideas, but rather, those who come off the most confident, the most witty, and frankly, the most smug.

Like it or not, this wins the audience. Because the audience isn't looking to be lectured or persuaded or taught. They are looking to be ENTERTAINED.

Admit it or not they are there to see a FIGHT. They love the tension inherent in any form of direct confrontation, be if verbal or physical, and how they determine the winner of the fight is by who sweats the least, by who makes them laugh, by who makes their opponent throw their hands up in exasperation (think Jeb Bush throwing up his hands, rolling his eyes, and exposing his weak neck for Donald to take a bite out of--didn't play too well, did it?).

The goal of public debate, quite simply, is to make the other person look stupid and feel out of control. Thus, any tactic you care to call upon is fair game, as far as the crowd is concerned.

Name calling ("Little Marco", "Crooked Hilllary"), logical fallacies, crude jokes, you name it. If you get the audience laughing, if it has them on the edge of their seats, you're already ten steps ahead.

This is why the meme war is so important. "We meme them until they cry, and then we make memes about them crying." Memes are effective simply because...they are funny.

And if you're smart, the best memes will not be pointed at the audience you are trying to persuade (i.e. self-called "liberals" or "democrats" or "normies") but at their "leaders."

See, they can choose to reject a leader, but they'll never reject themselves. Such is the ego.

So don't attack them. Attack Biden. Attack Kamala. Attack AOC. Attack the FBI. Attack the Federal Reserve, the CDC, etc.

Because run of the mill Democrats can actually find some of those jabs funny. And it can start to drive a wedge between them and their leaders.

But if you attack them, well...imagine if Trump had called the audience fat during his debates rather than making them laugh with fat jokes about Rosie O'Donnell.

Imagine if he attacked Marco Rubio's supporters, as opposed to Marco Rubio. Or the supporters of any of his other primary opponents in 2016.

Would that have worked?

How well has Hillary calling you "deplorables" and Brandon calling you "terrorists" worked on you? Had the opposite effect, huh?

I would encourage every meme maker and spreader here to consider that moving forward.

Think of who you're trying to persuade. Attack their leaders, not them. And soon they'll be ashamed to be associated with them, and will quietly move to the fun side.

Our side.

Anyway, that's most of what I know about persuasion. At least that I can think of right now. I wanted to share. Perhaps some of you mind find it useful.

WWG1WGA

When trying to persuade others there are two venues:

1. Privately
2. Publicly

If you genuinely care about persuading the person you are talking to, you should never attempt to do so with others present. Not even one other person.

Direct persuasion must be done privately as your main opponent is not the intellect of the other individual, but their ego.

And not just their ego, but your own. It has been said that to change a man's mind you must first convince him that you are truly his friend.

A friend is someone who loves you unconditionally and does not need you to see things the way they do in order to remain their friend.

Your chief goal when trying direct, private persuasion should be a genuine loving connection, and that genuine loving connection should shine as the utmost goal of the conversation.

You must be ok with them seeing things differently. You must be willing to listen actively--meaning listen intently to what they're saying, and repeat back what they're saying in your own words until they are satisfied you have understood their perspective genuinely and they grow quiet in anticipation of your reply.

You must never say "I understand, but." Never. You must SHOW them you understand via active listening. This may seem tedious at first, but you'd be surprised, it's actually the fastest way from point A to point B.

You must also never scoff at their words, roll your eyes, or do anything at all that seems to imply that you do not have the utmost respect both for their intelligence, and their character.

It goes a long, long way to preface nearly EVERYTHING you say with something along the lines of "Before I say this, I just want to make sure you know that this is just what I think right now. I admit the possibility that I may be wrong, and I don't expect you to see it the same way, and if you don't, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'll explain as much as you want, but if you want me to stop and explain something a little more in depth I'm happy to do that. I just want to make sure that you know that my relationship with you is more important to me than being right, and if you have a different perspective on it that you want to share, I promise this is a safe space where you'll be heard" or some form of that at least.

Then, when presenting your ideas, never use absolute statements. Preface answering each question with things like "I know I could be wrong, but it seems to me that..."

It also helps to draw on things you know they already feel or believe to draw comparisons, but again, always be ready to soften it with qualifying statements to prove that you're not set in your way of thinking and are still open to changing your mind, and be ready to admit that the comparison is not perfect, only helpful to your purpose of helping them to understand you.

"To make friends, shew thyself friendly."

If you want to inspire open-mindedness, shew thyself open-minded.

Do not bother telling people you are open-minded, just like you shouldn't bother telling them you understand. Show them via your conversation that you are, in fact, open-minded. And that you are not, in fact, a threat.

It also helps to never suggest there is something you have known for a long time that they were unaware of. If they're unaware of something, it helps to let them know that up until just recently, so were you, or that you had learned it long ago but had forgotten it but something recently had just reminded you of it.

This helps them to avoid feeling uninformed, and thus foolish and defensive.

Statements like "You know, I always thought that too. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me for the longest time. And I don't know, that still might be the case but here is something I found/heard/saw/read/thought of recently that has me thinking otherwise..."

Ask yourselves, do I love the person I'm trying to persuade? Do I love them enough to try my very best not to trigger their ego? Am I willing to be patient and kind and express clearly that my good relationship with them is the most important thing?

If you can answer yes to those questions, then by all means, make the attempt. And may God be with you. But if not, I don't recommend going there. If pride, not love, is your main goal. If saving the country and the world is more important to you than making them feel loved, I say you're not ready yet. You're better off working on loving that person more first. Serving them. Being with them. Then when you know you could suppress your ego, feel free to go there.

Now, there IS a place for public persuasion, and it's called debate.

And I do NOT recommend engaging in it with someone you love. Ever.

Granted, you should love everyone, but we know that's not possible and seeing that public debate is a great way to persuade, you should not shy away from it.

That said, when you debate publically, you must realize who it is you are trying to persuade, and it's not the person you're debating.

In Arthur Schopenhauer's book "The Art of Controversy" he explains that it is not the person you're debating you should seek to persuade, because the presence of an audience and the effect that has on both your ego and that of your opponent, makes the task too difficult.

No, in public debate, your target is not your opponent, but the audience itself.

The goal in public debate, quite simply, is to "come off better."

What does that mean?

Simply put, it means to never seem frazzled or exasperated, or upset. You should at all times seem cool as a cucumber. Never show emotion, if you can help it.

Certainly no negative emotion, but also, never laugh at an opponent's remark, no matter how ridiculous, or even how funny it is.

Laughing shows weakness, even when you're trying to act as if you're laughing because the other person said something ridiculous. It doesn't work, and neither does smiling.

Think of Hillary Clinton cackling on that stage as GEOTUS circled her like a hungry lion during his debates with her with that permanent scowl etched on his face.

It signals submission, and all that matters in a debate is what you SIGNAL. If you want a master class in public debate you need look no further than Donald John Trump, the greatest debater of our lifetimes (until his debate with Biden--which I believe he threw on purpose as part of the plan). Jordan Peterson has also become wonderful at this over the past few years, and so has that Crowder guy from Louder with Crowder (although you'll notice with Crowder, that even though he's in public, he usually brings them to his table under a tent with a tiny bit more privacy, and he's really good flattering people, joking with people, and getting them to feel safe admitting they've been wrong in some way. He could be more careful but he's really coming along, I have to admit).

The winners of debates are not those with the best ideas, but rather, those who come off the most confident, the most witty, and frankly, the most smug.

Like it or not, this wins the audience. Because the audience isn't looking to be lectured or persuaded or taught. They are looking to be ENTERTAINED.

Admit it or not they are there to see a FIGHT. They love the tension inherent in any form of direct confrontation, be if verbal or physical, and how they determine the winner of the fight is by who sweats the least, by who makes them laugh, by who makes their opponent throw their hands up in exasperation (think Jeb Bush throwing up his hands, rolling his eyes, and exposing his weak neck for Donald to take a bite out of--didn't play too well, did it?).

The goal of public debate, quite simply, is to make the other person look stupid and feel out of control. Thus, any tactic you care to call upon is fair game, as far as the crowd is concerned.

Name calling ("Little Marco", "Crooked Hilllary"), logical fallacies, crude jokes, you name it. If you get the audience laughing, if it has them on the edge of their seats, you're already ten steps ahead.

This is why the meme war is so important. "We meme them until they cry, and then we make memes about them crying." Memes are effective simply because...they are funny.

And if you're smart, the best memes will not be pointed at the audience you are trying to persuade (i.e. self-called "liberals" or "democrats" or "normies") but at their "leaders."

See, they can choose to reject a leader, but they'll never reject themselves. Such is the ego.

So don't attack them. Attack Biden. Attack Kamala. Attack AOC. Attack the FBI. Attack the Federal Reserve, the CDC, etc.

Because run of the mill Democrats can actually find some of those jabs funny. And it can start to drive a wedge between them and their leaders.

But if you attack them, well...imagine if Trump had called the audience fat during his debates rather than making them laugh with fat jokes about Rosie O'Donnell.

Imagine if he attacked Marco Rubio's supporters, as opposed to Marco Rubio. Or the supporters of any of his other primary opponents in 2016.

Would that have worked?

How well has Hillary calling you "deplorables" and Brandon calling you "terrorists" worked on you? Had the opposite effect, huh?

I would encourage every meme maker and spreader here to consider that moving forward.

Think of who you're trying to persuade. Attack their leaders, not them. And soon they'll be ashamed to be associated with them, and will quietly move to the fun side.

Our side.

Anyway, that's most of what I know about persuasion. At least that I can think of right now. I wanted to share. Perhaps some of you mind find it useful.

WWG1WGA

When trying to persuade others there are two venues:

1. Privately
2. Publicly

If you genuinely care about persuading the person you are talking to, you should never attempt to do so with others present. Not even one other person.

Direct persuasion must be done privately as your main opponent is not the intellect of the other individual, but their ego.

And not just their ego, but your own. It has been said that to change a man's mind you must first convince him that you are truly his friend.

A friend is someone who loves you unconditionally and does not need you to see things the way they do in order to remain their friend.

Your chief goal when trying direct, private persuasion should be a genuine loving connection, and that genuine loving connection should shine as the utmost goal of the conversation.

You must be ok with them seeing things differently. You must be willing to listen actively--meaning listen intently to what they're saying, and repeat back what they're saying in your own words until they are satisfied you have understood their perspective genuinely and they grow quiet in anticipation of your reply.

You must never say "I understand, but." Never. You must SHOW them you understand via active listening. This may seem tedious at first, but you'd be surprised, it's actually the fastest way from point A to point B.

You must also never scoff at their words, roll your eyes, or do anything at all that seems to imply that you do not have the utmost respect both for their intelligence, and their character.

It goes a long, long way to preface nearly EVERYTHING you say with something along the lines of "Before I say this, I just want to make sure you know that this is just what I think right now. I admit the possibility that I may be wrong, and I don't expect you to see it the same way, and if you don't, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'll explain as much as you want, but if you want me to stop and explain something a little more in depth I'm happy to do that. I just want to make sure that you know that my relationship with you is more important to me than being right, and if you have a different perspective on it that you want to share, I promise this is a safe space where you'll be heard" or some form of that at least.

Then, when presenting your ideas, never use absolute statements. Preface answering each question with things like "I know I could be wrong, but it seems to me that..."

It also helps to draw on things you know they already feel or believe to draw comparisons, but again, always be ready to soften it with qualifying statements to prove that you're not set in your way of thinking and are still open to changing your mind, and be ready to admit that the comparison is not perfect, only helpful to your purpose of helping them to understand you.

"To make friends, shew thyself friendly."

If you want to inspire open-mindedness, shew thyself open-minded.

Do not bother telling people you are open-minded, just like you shouldn't bother telling them you understand. Show them via your conversation that you are, in fact, open-minded. And that you are not, in fact, a threat.

It also helps to never suggest there is something you have known for a long time that they were unaware of. If they're unaware of something, it helps to let them know that up until just recently, so were you, or that you had learned it long ago but had forgotten it but something recently had just reminded you of it.

This helps them to avoid feeling uninformed, and thus foolish and defensive.

Statements like "You know, I always thought that too. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me for the longest time. And I don't know, that still might be the case but here is something I found/heard/saw/read/thought of recently that has me thinking otherwise..."

Ask yourselves, do I love the person I'm trying to persuade? Do I love them enough to try my very best not to trigger their ego? Am I willing to be patient and kind and express clearly that my good relationship with them is the most important thing?

If you can answer yes to those questions, then by all means, make the attempt. And may God be with you. But if not, I don't recommend going there. If pride, not love, is your main goal. If saving the country and the world is more important to you than making them feel loved, I say you're not ready yet. You're better off working on loving that person more first. Serving them. Being with them. Then when you know you could suppress your ego, feel free to go there.

Now, there IS a place for public persuasion, and it's called debate.

And I do NOT recommend engaging in it with someone you love. Ever.

Granted, you should love everyone, but we know that's not possible and seeing that public debate is a great way to persuade, you should not shy away from it.

That said, when you debate publically, you must realize who it is you are trying to persuade, and it's not the person you're debating.

In Arthur Schopenhauer's book "The Art of Controversy" he explains that it is not the person you're debating you should seek to persuade, because the presence of an audience and the effect that has on both your ego and that of your opponent, makes the task too difficult.

No, in public debate, your target is not your opponent, but the audience itself.

The goal in public debate, quite simply, is to "come off better."

What does that mean?

Simply put, it means to never seem frazzled or exasperated, or upset. You should at all times seem cool as a cucumber. Never show emotion, if you can help it.

Certainly no negative emotion, but also, never laugh at an opponent's remark, no matter how ridiculous, or even how funny it is.

Laughing shows weakness, even when you're trying to act as if you're laughing because the other person said something ridiculous. It doesn't work, and neither does smiling.

Think of Hillary Clinton cackling on that stage as GEOTUS circled her like a hungry lion during his debates with her with that permanent scowl etched on his face.

It signals submission, and all that matters in a debate is what you SIGNAL. If you want a master class in public debate you need look no further than Donald John Trump, the greatest debater of our lifetimes (until his debate with Biden--which I believe he threw on purpose as part of the plan). Jordan Peterson has also become wonderful at this over the past few years, and so has that Crowder guy from Louder with Crowder.

The winners of debates are not those with the best ideas, but rather, those who come off the most confident, the most witty, and frankly, the most smug.

Like it or not, this wins the audience. Because the audience isn't looking to be lectured or persuaded or taught. They are looking to be ENTERTAINED.

Admit it or not they are there to see a FIGHT. They love the tension inherent in any form of direct confrontation, be if verbal or physical, and how they determine the winner of the fight is by who sweats the least, by who makes them laugh, by who makes their opponent throw their hands up in exasperation (think Jeb Bush throwing up his hands, rolling his eyes, and exposing his weak neck for Donald to take a bite out of--didn't play too well, did it?).

The goal of public debate, quite simply, is to make the other person look stupid and feel out of control. Thus, any tactic you care to call upon is fair game, as far as the crowd is concerned.

Name calling ("Little Marco", "Crooked Hilllary"), logical fallacies, crude jokes, you name it. If you get the audience laughing, if it has them on the edge of their seats, you're already ten steps ahead.

This is why the meme war is so important. "We meme them until they cry, and then we make memes about them crying." Memes are effective simply because...they are funny.

And if you're smart, the best memes will not be pointed at the audience you are trying to persuade (i.e. self-called "liberals" or "democrats" or "normies") but at their "leaders."

See, they can choose to reject a leader, but they'll never reject themselves. Such is the ego.

So don't attack them. Attack Biden. Attack Kamala. Attack AOC. Attack the FBI. Attack the Federal Reserve, the CDC, etc.

Because run of the mill Democrats can actually find some of those jabs funny. And it can start to drive a wedge between them and their leaders.

But if you attack them, well...imagine if Trump had called the audience fat during his debates rather than making them laugh with fat jokes about Rosie O'Donnell.

Imagine if he attacked Marco Rubio's supporters, as opposed to Marco Rubio. Or the supporters of any of his other primary opponents in 2016.

Would that have worked?

How well has Hillary calling you "deplorables" and Brandon calling you "terrorists" worked on you? Had the opposite effect, huh?

I would encourage every meme maker and spreader here to consider that moving forward.

Think of who you're trying to persuade. Attack their leaders, not them. And soon they'll be ashamed to be associated with them, and will quietly move to the fun side.

Our side.

Anyway, that's most of what I know about persuasion. At least that I can think of right now. I wanted to share. Perhaps some of you mind find it useful.

WWG1WGA

When trying to persuade others there are two venues:

1. Privately
2. Publicly

If you genuinely care about persuading the person you are talking to, you should never attempt to do so with others present. Not even one other person.

Direct persuasion must be done privately as your main opponent is not the intellect of the other individual, but their ego.

And not just their ego, but your own. It has been said that to change a man's mind you must first convince him that you are truly his friend.

A friend is someone who loves you unconditionally and does not need you to see things the way they do in order to remain their friend.

Your chief goal when trying direct, private persuasion should be a genuine loving connection, and that genuine loving connection should shine as the utmost goal of the conversation.

You must be ok with them seeing things differently. You must be willing to listen actively--meaning listen intently to what they're saying, and repeat back what they're saying in your own words until they are satisfied you have understood their perspective genuinely and they grow quiet in anticipation of your reply.

You must never say "I understand, but." Never. You must SHOW them you understand via active listening. This may seem tedious at first, but you'd be surprised, it's actually the fastest way from point A to point B.

You must also never scoff at their words, roll your eyes, or do anything at all that seems to imply that you do not have the utmost respect both for their intelligence, and their character.

It goes a long, long way to preface nearly EVERYTHING you say with something along the lines of "Before I say this, I just want to make sure you know that this is just what I think right now. I admit the possibility that I may be wrong, and I don't expect you to see it the same way, and if you don't, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'll explain as much as you want, but if you want me to stop and explain something a little more in depth I'm happy to do that. I just want to make sure that you know that my relationship with you is more important to me than being right, and if you have a different perspective on it that you want to share, I promise this is a safe space where you'll be heard" or some form of that at least.

Then, when presenting your ideas, never use absolute statements. Preface answering each question with things like "I know I could be wrong, but it seems to me that..."

It also helps to draw on things you know they already feel or believe to draw comparisons, but again, always be ready to soften it with qualifying statements to prove that you're not set in your way of thinking and are still open to changing your mind, and be ready to admit that the comparison is not perfect, only helpful to your purpose of helping them to understand you.

"To make friends, shew thyself friendly."

If you want to inspire open-mindedness, shew thyself open-minded.

Do not bother telling people you are open-minded, just like you shouldn't bother telling them you understand. Show them via your conversation that you are, in fact, open-minded. And that you are not, in fact, a threat.

It also helps to never suggest there is something you have known for a long time that they were unaware of. If they're unaware of something, it helps to let them know that up until just recently, so were you, or that you had learned it long ago but had forgotten it but something recently had just reminded you of it.

This helps them to avoid feeling uninformed, and thus foolish and defensive.

Statements like "You know, I always thought that too. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me for the longest time. And I don't know, that still might be the case but here is something I found/heard/saw/read/thought of recently that has me thinking otherwise..."

Ask yourselves, do I love the person I'm trying to persuade? Do I love them enough to try my very best not to trigger their ego? Am I willing to be patient and kind and express clearly that my good relationship with them is the most important thing?

If you can answer yes to those questions, then by all means, make the attempt. And may God be with you. But if not, I don't recommend going there. If pride, not love, is your main goal. If saving the country and the world is more important to you than making them feel loved, I say you're not ready yet. You're better off working on loving that person more first. Serving them. Being with them. Then when you know you could suppress your ego, feel free to go there.

Now, there IS a place for public persuasion, and it's called debate.

And I do NOT recommend engaging in it with someone you love. Ever.

Granted, you should love everyone, but we know that's not possible and seeing that public debate is a great way to persuade, you should not shy away from it.

That said, when you debate publically, you must realize who it is you are trying to persuade, and it's not the person you're debating.

In Arthur Schopenhauer's book "The Art of Controversy" he explains that it is not the person you're debating you should seek to persuade, because the presence of an audience and the effect that has on both your ego and that of your opponent, makes the task too difficult.

No, in public debate, your target is not your opponent, but the audience itself.

The goal in public debate, quite simply, is to "come off better."

What does that mean?

Simply put, it means to never seem frazzled or exasperated, or upset. You should at all times seem cool as a cucumber. Never show emotion, if you can help it.

Certainly no negative emotion, but also, never laugh at an opponent's remark, no matter how ridiculous, or even how funny it is.

Laughing shows weakness, even when you're trying to act as if you're laughing because the other person said something ridiculous. It doesn't work, and neither does smiling.

Think of Hillary Clinton cackling on that stage as GEOTUS circled her like a hungry lion during his debates with her with that permanent scowl etched on his face.

It signals submission, and all that matters in a debate is what you SIGNAL. If you want a master class in public debate you need look no further than Donald John Trump, the greatest debater of our lifetimes (until his debate with Biden--which I believe he threw on purpose as part of the plan).

The winners of debates are not those with the best ideas, but rather, those who come off the most confident, the most witty, and frankly, the most smug.

Like it or not, this wins the audience. Because the audience isn't looking to be lectured or persuaded or taught. They are looking to be ENTERTAINED.

Admit it or not they are there to see a FIGHT. They love the tension inherent in any form of direct confrontation, be if verbal or physical, and how they determine the winner of the fight is by who sweats the least, by who makes them laugh, by who makes their opponent throw their hands up in exasperation (think Jeb Bush throwing up his hands, rolling his eyes, and exposing his weak neck for Donald to take a bite out of--didn't play too well, did it?).

The goal of public debate, quite simply, is to make the other person look stupid and feel out of control. Thus, any tactic you care to call upon is fair game, as far as the crowd is concerned.

Name calling ("Little Marco", "Crooked Hilllary"), logical fallacies, crude jokes, you name it. If you get the audience laughing, if it has them on the edge of their seats, you're already ten steps ahead.

This is why the meme war is so important. "We meme them until they cry, and then we make memes about them crying." Memes are effective simply because...they are funny.

And if you're smart, the best memes will not be pointed at the audience you are trying to persuade (i.e. self-called "liberals" or "democrats" or "normies") but at their "leaders."

See, they can choose to reject a leader, but they'll never reject themselves. Such is the ego.

So don't attack them. Attack Biden. Attack Kamala. Attack AOC. Attack the FBI. Attack the Federal Reserve, the CDC, etc.

Because run of the mill Democrats can actually find some of those jabs funny. And it can start to drive a wedge between them and their leaders.

But if you attack them, well...imagine if Trump had called the audience fat during his debates rather than making them laugh with fat jokes about Rosie O'Donnell.

Imagine if he attacked Marco Rubio's supporters, as opposed to Marco Rubio. Or the supporters of any of his other primary opponents in 2016.

Would that have worked?

How well has Hillary calling you "deplorables" and Brandon calling you "terrorists" worked on you? Had the opposite effect, huh?

I would encourage every meme maker and spreader here to consider that moving forward.

Think of who you're trying to persuade. Attack their leaders, not them. And soon they'll be ashamed to be associated with them, and will quietly move to the fun side.

Our side.

Anyway, that's most of what I know about persuasion. At least that I can think of right now. I wanted to share. Perhaps some of you mind find it useful.

WWG1WGA