I ignore personal attacks, but bring the conversation back from red herrings, and don't let them redefine my point with a straw man. (Edit) I will call out logical fallacies, either directly if they would know the word "strawman," or indirectly with "that isn't what I said" / "that isn't what I believe" / etc.
For some points, like marxism vs capitalism, the problem is a disagreement at a foundational level. I only argued that a few times with a transgender communist that I know from university days, and I think he is genuine, so I gave him honest answers.
The core problem is a misunderstanding of human nature; if marxist philosophy is correct, then socialism and communism works. Of course, marxist philosophy is false, as it is based on the idea that people are innately pure and good, and thus in a good society people will work hard for the good of others with no concern for themselves.
Reality, as every person who lives in the real world has seen, is that people are naturally selfish. While some might selflessly help others in situations, they aren't going to work long hours on a difficult job if the reward is the same as working an easy job. Not everyone equally values hard work, so when they start mixing in a socialist society, one group becomes a drag, and eventually every other group drops to the bottom level of production. If this wasn't obvious from simple life experience, we now have many examples over 100 years of how productivity drops in truly marxist societies.
Still, all the points against socialism fail to make an impact if the person refuses to accept absolute truth, and the natural human proclivity towards selfishness. Socialism vs capitalism is a higher level arguement that makes little progress if a person disagrees with axiomatic truths. These people typically think supply and demand is a capitalist construct, when it clearly is an immutable law of human nature, even existing in marxist societies via the black market.
So on socialism verses capitalism*, I point out that it is a pointless discussion to have unless they can agree on issues pertaining to absolute truth and human nature, as that is actually what the disagreement is about.
I ignore personal attacks, but bring the conversation back from red herrings, and don't let them redefine my point with a straw man. (Edit) I will call out logical fallacies, either directly if they would know the word "strawman," or indirectly with "that isn't what I said" / "that isn't what I believe" / etc.
For some points, like marxism vs capitalism, the problem is a disagreement at a foundational level. I only argued that a few times with a transgender communist that I know from university days, and I think he is genuine, so I gave him honest answers.
The core problem is a misunderstanding of human nature; if marxist philosophy is correct, then socialism and communism works. Of course, marxist philosophy is false, as it is based on the idea that people are innately pure and good, and thus in a good society people will work hard for the good of others with no concern for themselves.
Reality, as every person who lives in the real world has seen, is that people are naturally selfish. While some might selflessly help others in situations, they aren't going to work long hours on a difficult job if the reward is the same as working an easy job. Not everyone equally values hard work, so when they start mixing in a socialist society, one group becomes a drag, and eventually every other group drops to the bottom level of production. If this wasn't obvious from simple life experience, we now have many examples over 100 years of how productivity drops in truly marxist societies.
Still, all the points against socialism fail to make an impact if the person refuses to accept absolute truth, and the natural human proclivity towards selfishness. Socialism vs capitalism is a higher level arguement that makes little progress if a person disagrees with axiomatic truths. These people typically think supply and demand is a capitalist construct, when it clearly is an immutable law of human nature, even existing in marxist societies via the black market.
So on socialism verses marxism, I point out that it is a pointless discussion to have unless they can agree on issues pertaining to absolute truth and human nature, as that is actually what the disagreement is about.
I ignore personal attacks, but being the conversation back from red herrings, don't let them redefine your point with a straw man.
For some points, like marxism vs capitalism, the problem is a disagreement at a foundational level. I only argued that a few times with a transgender communist that I know from university days, and I think he is genuine, so I gave him honest answers.
The core problem is a misunderstanding of human nature; if marxist philosophy is correct, then socialism and communism works. Of course, marxist philosophy is false, as it is based on the idea that people are innately pure and good, and thus in a good society people will work hard for the good of others with no concern for themselves.
Reality, as every person who lives in the real world has seen, is that people are naturally selfish. While some might selflessly help others in situations, they aren't going to work long hours on a difficult job if the reward is the same as working an easy job. Not everyone equally values hard work, so when they start mixing in a socialist society, one group becomes a drag, and eventually every other group drops to the bottom level of production. If this wasn't obvious from simple life experience, we now have many examples over 100 years of how productivity drops in truly marxist societies.
Still, all the points against socialism fail to make an impact if the person refuses to accept absolute truth, and the natural human proclivity towards selfishness. Socialism vs capitalism is a higher level arguement that makes little progress if a person disagrees with axiomatic truths. These people typically think supply and demand is a capitalist construct, when it clearly is an immutable law of human nature, even existing in marxist societies via the black market.
So on socialism verses marxism, I point out that it is a pointless discussion to have unless they can agree on issues pertaining to absolute truth and human nature, as that is actually what the disagreement is about.