After having quite the dozen online debates with various stripes of ideologues about the bases of morality, nation, history, biology and basic metaphysics, I have determined a dialectic to counter any liberal argument and potentially slay it in its tracks. Argument 1: "Degeneracy is not real!/That's just a word!" This argument is the staple of average young liberals and is usually found in the urban settings of any cosmopolitan area in the west. It is frequently used as a counter to simple observations on the decline of national integrity within communities and to the grotesque misbehavior of social deviants in contrast to the ethical and dedicated working man whom values order and responsibility in his life. Given the nature of this comparison, it conflicts with the chief belief of liberalism, i.e that all things are deserving of equal treatment so long as they don't judge another. This "don't judge" mentality eventually extends to those who have achieved some sort of personal stability wherein fulfillment has been made; the result being any functional human being making a criticism to those less developed targeted by mobs of enraged leftists for the crime of being an "oppressor". This act of public slander is the prime tool of liberal dominance. To admit that one is not as good as the other is to understand that equality does not exist as a preset. If given enough time to contemplate, one would inevitably recognize that if something or someone ceased to be clean, strong or able, that even something good would fall from the previous condition. In addition, they would need a word to properly describe this phenomenon: that which falls from its original status, which could also be its origin or perhaps, the generation of itself and the worth thereof. If to generate is to create or beget, then the most logical term for its opposite is to de-generate. Thus the meaning: 1 Having deteriorated, degraded or fallen from normal, coherent, balanced and desirable to undesirable and abnormal. 2. To lose or cause to lose good or worthy qualities. 3. [Adjective] Having lost what is good. 4. A case where an object or matter changes to a simpler, lesser type. 6. [Noun] One who is degenerate, who has fallen from previous stature. To reveal this very simple concept of degeneration as an observable, objective marker for decay and ruin of matters is to dismantle the entire belief system that fuels the first argument. To show that a society or organization of individuals can break down in the same manner as an iron rod into rust is to demonstrate that degeneration is not simply a act of immorality or bad-doing, but rather that immoral behaviors lead to the cracking of societal foundations. One cannot be in a group and live among others if one cannot support them, thus the acts of sloth, unbridled lust and envy were seen in all higher cultures as bringers of ruination, the disintegration of the bedrock from the acid rain of jealousy and fruitlessness. These traits were not considered wrong and unworthy of practice because they were 'just hated to be hated', as liberals assume, but because they were degenerate, which takes us to the next sophistic claim. Argument 2: "If degeneracy is just something which leads to evil and death then [insert X] is evil therefore degenerate." This argument is more common among older liberals and progressive types who are a remnant from older times. It is often used to counter criticisms of degenerative actions by claiming that the critics are themselves tied to some sort of degeneration and are simply projecting. As many rebukers of degeneration tend to be conservative, this almost always leads to accusations of various -isms centered on anything related to negative discrimination, usually based on race or sex. Even if the critic is technically a progressive or libertine in thought the accusations simple change to ad hominem charges of secretly being an evil bigot cloaking its intentions with modern ideas. When this strategy fails, the argument succums to subjectivity; anything revolting or abhorrent to those tying the meaning of degeneracy to their idea of evil/immorality can be used for their own rationale. To defeat this, give the definitive meaning of the word "degenerate" and elaborate an example that confirms a common ideal of "evil" to be non-degenerative. The perfect example for most people, particularly Occidentals, the Third Reich. In the eyes of most "educated" liberals, this particular era was the absolute worst-therefore lowest-in history. Given the state of Germany before the rule of Hitler, it was in fact a clean-up of the wreck that existed in the previous incarnation of Germany, the Weimar Republic. When demonstrating the lack of degeneracy in the Reich, one should teach those ignorant of history how completely repulsive this age was. All the while detailing the rotten shame of a culture it produced which would have engulfed all of Germania with the cancer of a thousand tumors. This quote from a contemporary of that time should be enough to crush any idea that the Republic was better than the Reich: "I saw pimps offering anything to anyone: little boys, little girls, robust young men, libidinous women, animals. The story went the rounds that a male goose whose neck you cut at just the right ecstatic moment would give you the most delicious frisson of all-as it allowed you to enjoy sodomy, bestiality, homosexuality, necrophilia and sadism at one stroke. Gastronomy too, as one could eat the goose afterwards." Now compare this attitude to the one that replaced it: "Paragraph 175. A male who commits lewd and lascivious acts with another male or permits himself to be abused for lewd and lascivious acts, shall be punished by imprisonment. a. Confinement in a penitentiary not to exceed 10 years, under extenuating circumstances, imprisonment for not less than 3 months shall be imposed." b. Lewd and lascivious acts contrary to nature between human beings and animals shall be punished by imprisonment; loss of civil rights may also be imposed." What makes this distinction perfect evidence against the progressive argument is the historical fact that the laws of the Reich towards fruitless sexual acts were a restoration of primordial German law, which was heavily neglected by the foreign-wrought Republic. Paragraph 175 of the 2nd Reich, 1872: "Unnatural fornication, whether between persons of the male sex or of humans with beasts, is punished with imprisonment, with the further punishment of a prompt loss of civil rights." Allgemeines Landrecht of Prussia, paragraph 143, 1794: "Unnatural fornication, whether between people of the male sex or of humans with beasts, is punished with imprisonment of 6 months to 4 years, with the further punishment of a prompt loss of civil rights." Constitutio Criminalis Carolina [Halsgerichtordnung] Holy Roman Empire, 1532: "The punishment for fornication that goes against nature. cxvi. when a human commits fornication with a beast, a man with a man, a woman with a woman, they have also forfeited life. And they should be, according to the common custom, banished by fire from life into death." Germania, Chapter 12, c. 98 A.D: "In their councils an accusation may be preferred or a capital crime prosecuted. Penalties are distinguished according to the offense. Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; the coward, the unwarlike, the man stained with abominable vices, is plunged into the mire of the morass, with a hurdle put over him. This distinction in punishment means that crime, they think, ought in being punished, to be exposed, while infamy ought to be buried out of sight" Compare the weight of these laws to the lacking social mores of the Republic as demonstrated in its lack of legal strength to prevent the thrill-kills of geese let alone the spread of "feels good, use it" culture from celebrating its garbage in public. In the end, the "evil" were in reality a working solution to the disease that frolicked the streets of the cities while threatening the countryside with assimilation. The alien government of the Weimar Republic with its numerous largely non-functional parties were nought but a mirror of the corruption below. Their weakness was in itself a manifestation of disorder brought by collapse of what was once good and high to a lower state of being-thus the Republic was a degeneration. The Reich was not. This argument can be used for any comparison, and is yet again a dissection of both liberal and progressive reasoning. When using these discourses in a debate it is best to practice with the moderate types of lib and prog then if needed, advance to the more extreme sections of the left. However, one really shouldn't waste anytime on the tail-end of liberty. It really isn't worth debating the worshipers of sodomites on why they really need to stop their enslavement to desire let alone the walking contradictions such as Milo Yiannopoulos and his hordes of self-described "altright" megatrolls who deem themselves "protectors of The West", as I have learned from many attempts.