A breakdown of bad-faith arguments, goalpost shifting, and why debating Tate followers is usually a waste of time.
I didn’t set out to argue with an Andrew Tate follower today, but I ended up doing so anyway!. The post in question? A piece by The London Economic about Sam Fender’s take on why figures like Andrew Tate are “seductive” to young British men.
What followed was a classic social media back and forth that spiraled into mental gymnastics, goalpost-shifting, and outright misogyny. The guy I debated, Yusuf, went through every play in the bad-faith argument handbook – contradicting himself, shifting blame, and refusing to engage in any kind of intellectual honesty.
I’m breaking down the exchange here. Consider this a case study in how Tate followers think, argue, and ultimately reveal their own insecurities.
Phase 1: Men are in charge because of merit
Yusuf starts strong with the classic “Men work harder, so they deserve to be in charge” argument. According to him, men aren’t in power because of systemic advantages or historical oppression – it’s just that they’re better at making money and running things.
My Response:
I pointed out that this is a lazy excuse that ignores how power structures actually work. If it were purely about merit, then why have men historically hoarded opportunities while excluding women from the same playing field? Also, if men are inherently more “deserving,” why do we still have such blatant disparities even when women perform at equal or higher levels in education and business?
Phase 2: Actually, it’s because they’re rich
Yusuf then subtly pivots. It’s not that men are in charge because they work harder – it’s because rich men are in charge. According to him, wealth is the real factor, not patriarchy.
My Response:
This contradicts his first claim. If it’s all about wealth, then why are men the ones disproportionately accumulating it? The system he’s trying to downplay – patriarchy – is exactly what has allowed rich men to remain rich while keeping wealth concentrated in the hands of a select few. He’s accidentally proving my point.
Phase 3: It’s genderroles, and women are to blame
Seeing that his previous arguments weren’t landing, he then shifts to “Well, it’s not really men’s fault, it’s just natural gender roles”. This is where things take a more bizarre turn – he claims that women are actually responsible for enforcing these roles, so they can’t complain about them.
My Response:
So now it’s not about merit or wealth, but about women upholding gender roles? Convenient. I pointed out that gender roles aren’t some organic, natural occurrence but rather a socially reinforced system. And even if some women do participate in enforcing them, who created the system in the first place? Who benefits from it? The answer is men – specifically, the same rich men he claims are “just better” at accumulating power.
At this point, I could tell he was just cycling through arguments, looking for something that would stick.
Phase 4: Rich men are actually feminists
This was the moment where his argument fully collapsed into absurdity. Out of nowhere, he claimed that rich men aren’t oppressing women at all – if anything, they support feminism because they benefit from women joining the workforce.
My Response:
Wait… so rich men aren’t in charge because of patriarchy, but they’re somehow actively supporting feminism? I pointed out the obvious contradiction: he’s arguing that men are naturally superior while simultaneously claiming they’re pushing feminism. Which one is it?
At this stage, I realised that responding any further was pointless. His argument wasn’t based on logic – it was just a defense mechanism for a worldview he didn’t want to question.
What this interaction taught me
- These arguments aren’t about logic – they’re about emotion.
- At first, I thought Yusuf was simply uninformed. But as the conversation went on, it became clear that he wasn’t debating – he was emotionally invested in protecting his beliefs. His shifting arguments weren’t meant to make sense; they were meant to avoid conceding a point.
- Goalpost shifting is their favorite tactic.
- First, men were in charge because they worked harder. Then it was because they were rich. Then it was because of gender roles. Then rich men were actually feminists. These people don’t stick to one argument because they don’t have a coherent stance. They just want to keep talking in circles to exhaust you.
- Andrew Tate’s influence is real – and it’s making young men more extreme.
- What struck me most about Yusuf wasn’t just the bad arguments, but the undertone of resentment. The way he spoke about women – blaming them, shifting responsibility onto them, and downplaying systemic inequality – was straight out of the Andrew Tate playbook. The dangerous part? He genuinely believed it.
So, should you engage with these people? My take: not unless you want to practice your patience.
Yusuf’s arguments weren’t unique. They were a mishmash of every Tate-inspired talking point designed to derail and exhaust rather than engage in a meaningful discussion. If you ever find yourself in an argument with someone like this, know that:
- They aren’t arguing in good faith.
- They will contradict themselves.
- They will never admit they’re wrong.
Sometimes, the best response is no response at all. But if you do choose to engage, do it like I did – so others don’t have to.
When debating people like Yusuf, you’re rarely convincing them, but you are influencing the people watching. There are always lurkers in these discussions, and many of them may be undecided, questioning, or looking for counterpoints to the toxic narratives they see online. Debunking bad arguments publicly helps shape the broader discourse.
Andrew Tate’s appeal isn’t built on facts, it’s built on emotion. Many of his followers feel lost, overlooked, or powerless, and his rhetoric gives them an easy scapegoat: women. Combating this requires more than just calling out misogyny, it requires showing young men healthier ways to find confidence, purpose, and community.
Reacting to Tate followers one by one isn’t scalable, but shaping the culture around them is. Platforms, media, and influencers need to highlight better male role models- ones who promote ambition, confidence, and success without relying on tearing others down. Tate’s popularity is partly a vacuum problem – there aren’t enough mainstream alternatives that resonate with young men in the same way.
One of the reasons Tate’s influence is so strong is because his followers take his content at face value. Teaching young people to critically evaluate sources, spot manipulation tactics, and challenge their own biases is crucial. Education, both in schools and through accessible, engaging content, can help prevent people from falling into extremist pipelines.
