ITT: Catchphrases that reveal a weak argument

>DU IT EGEN BOMAR HARIS AAAAA
>GO BAK TU /PAUL/ AAAA
>JURMANS AR BARBERIANZ AAAA

>iq
>holistic interpretation of statistics
>pseudoscience
>argument of authority
>ideology
>conquest is an argument of superiority

>conquest is an argument of superiority
The rest I agree with my good sir, but I beg to differ when defending this position. I don't personally hold this view, but can see its merit as while a strict only-the-strong-survive kind of scoiety will be inhumane and with a lot of internal conflict, technically it results in an almost unrivaled resolve and strength in the surviving members, AKA literally the bes of the best

>H
>R
>E
but unironically

>arabs invading europe
>mexicans overwhelming european population on US

Yes and if the West can't get its shit together we lose

this, so fucking much

writing the opponent's argument with poor spelling to suggest they're stupid

>history is written by the victors

I think telling people to go back to Paul is justified. There's no excusing holocaust deniers (who are invariably poltards anyway) when there are ample arguments and counter arguments exist that we never get a response to; namely because serious challenge always degrades to shitflinging and 'DA JOOZ' a long time before that.

Telling someone who believes that the Wehrmacht were a great army or that Barbarossa would have succeeded were it not for x to go back to Paul is wrong, though.

I agree, but what would you say to people who say the holocaust did happen, but was exagerrated?

but that's not how society works, and is why it's wrong

I'm not but I think that as long as someone agrees to the basic facts (millions of Jews and millions of others were killed by Nazi Germany) then you can have a real discussion about the historical significance of it. The problem comes when people start denying that the Nazis exterminated people they didn't like. There's just no historical evidence to defend that position.

Depends what you mean by "exaggerated". If you want to argue 5.5 million rather than 6 million were killed, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, and contrary to /pol/ memes in fact respected academic historians do have these debates.

If by "exaggerated" you mean believing that only a few thousand died, and only from disease and starvation not gas chambers, then that is just Holocaust denial for people who are too pussy to go all the way, and those people should fuck off back to /pol/

>Strong and stable

>coalition of chaos

>Drumpf
>Cheeto-face
>Cock holster
>tiny hands

what if you say millions died but mostly because of starvation and illness due to bombed railways, and not by throwing them into ovens alive?

>jeremy corbachov
>laughing when he's the joke

>Britain's main leaders are Teresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, and Boris Johnson

The line between black comedy and outright tragedy has never been so hard to find.

Then you're retarded and need to go back to /pol/.

There is extensive documentation of and confessions to a coordinated extermination campaign.

>God works in mysterious ways

those confessions are as legit as the Nuremberg trials lmao

>Telling someone who believes that the Wehrmacht were a great army or that Barbarossa would have succeeded were it not for x to go back to Paul is wrong, though.
No, it's better to tell them to fuck off back to Warthunder or something.

Tfw you realize Colbert hates Trump because Trump is exactly the character he tried and failed to portray.

Don't dispair, Moggy is waiting in the wings to save us!

The Colbert Report was a parody of Bill O'Reilly.

Yeah sure he is. Nothing near as hilarious a joke as the entire Conservative party right now right?