Why is it that when debating with a leftist, liberal...

Why is it that when debating with a leftist, liberal, Marxist -- whatever you want to call them -- when faced with defeat, the first thing they do is go after your sex life, or the supposed lack thereof?
To me, it makes zero sense. I really don't understand how they could glean any info about someone's sex life based on a few anonymous posts.
Yet, they seem sure as hell that no one here is getting laid while they are out slaying it.
>Why do you care?
Because I want actual discussion and debate, not the tired old tactic of "well, I'm beginning to lose, better call him an incel."

Attached: 1637106806734.jpg (678x569, 50.05K)

i dont know youll have to ask somebody else

You sound like a cumsock cuddler to me.

Women will just attack your sexuality or threaten not to sleep with you, or that other women will not sleep with you, when you say something they really don’t like. It’s the most leverage they actually have.

Because it works.
Right wing loves to advertise themselves and Look powerful.

You say "Your fucking dick is small."
And it ruins their lives.

But, be Mad. Cut Taxes. And suck Bill gate's dick.

I doubt women post on Any Forums.

>ad hominem is based because it's funny!
Imagine being a child.

sex is one if not the greatest force in any animal, it's what keep the species alive, people get offended by it, sick by it, mentally ill by it and die by it...

(((Sigmund Freud))) told them to.

Maybe if you're 12. Once you grow up and get married and start a family, sex is just a little nice thing you do sometimes to have something special with your wife.

Because sex is all they can think about half of the time; They only like beauty, and can't appreciate ugly

so your life was around mating? which is done by sex...
let's say I fuck your wife, how sick would you get in the stomach?

Not as sick as his wife would get in the stomach.
Because morning sickness.
Giggity.

because their entire lives have been built around their sexuality. LGBTWhatever, getting women, men, pussy, hypersexualization, porn all the time, "bussy" whatever - all of this is signs that sex, and the ability to get it; social tokening; is the highest value in current society.
Nothing else matters to them. They are literal addicts and cannot form an opinion otherwise because they don't have one. It's like trying to explain to a heroin addict that they don't have to do heroin to be happy. Yes they do, their brains are fried. Hence the argument. It's a grave insult to them.

arguing the point isn't their strong suit

What a sad existence. I feel sorry for the next generation.

Glowies do it to create the appearance of debate for lurkers and casual browsers, or just to demoralize you.

Entire social circles built around product, you build a 'community' around something you buy, rather than anything else. Your friends are who consumes the same thing you do goy, your friends are the ones who fuck the same things you do goy, there are no higher values, no higher purpose, no greater things to strive for, no moral truth. There is just consumption and cooming and they have bought it wholesale.
Yes, it's really sad. But it's like trying to drag an addict away from their fix. They have to want to leave, otherwise it's more or less a waste of time.

>Marxists
Don't debate them, one day they'll be rounded up and put against a wall for the sake of civilization.

the men being discussed might as well be women to be fair.

They haven't looked at enough rat birds obviously

Attached: 1656625525857.png (817x594, 721.54K)

what would be your counterpoint to that community then? what should social circles be built around. I see cynicism without solution

For me they always start debating the meaning of words in an effort to seem correct.

I can easily see how cynicism would arise, but generally social circles in the past arose out of a few things:
race, religion, or social creed. One of which we can see in the founding of america: the forefathers whom had (slightly) different backgrounds all agreed upon a new headstone to rest the country, and that was the basis of everything then to come. All peoples then underneath of it, at least agreed on this concept. We have less of this now, if you were to ask if the constitution was essentially the equivalent of 'holy' to an extreme leftist, what would your answer be?
Furthermore, back in the 20s, if two boys became friends, what was their common bond? Sticking together? Being together? Brothers? I strongly recommend you read the book "the way of men" if you haven't, it kind of addresses the entire argument. People traditionally didn't build a community around "world of warcraft" in a "culture" concept, you might have both played baseball, but it went further.

At least a man calling another man a virgin is, while juvenile, at some level a meaningful insult, considering it implies that he can get something, owing to his desirability, that the recipient cannot. However quite often, whenever you are discussing some unpopular political figure/loser/stupid character etc. it is always a female in the group going "lol probably a virgin, rite guys.?" Women who had numerous partners, thinking "virgin" is a great insult to throw around, perfectly encapsulate what is wrong with society.

I'm married, my wife is hot, I have a big dick, and we have great sex, often multiple times per day.

But it looks extremely cringe spluttering about it to whatever purple haired retard is clutching at those straws on an anonymous image board, so it's best just to ignore them, or laugh at them for using the "holes argument" and move on swiftly.