Replies

Arguing with a liberal... If you are actually trying to have a real discussion, bring out information and have both parties walk away enlightened with something to think about ... Well, you're going to be frustrated and sorely disappointed. Liberals simply do not provide that kind of sounding board for real debate, real discussion.

However, if you are in the mood and have the time, arguing with a liberal can be great sport. Well, maybe if you're of a certain mindset. I admit I watch "fail" videos online too. Maybe it is a character flaw of mine but I find it funny when people do stupid things. So naturally arguing with liberals is just a verbal/written extension of watching other people fail. Watch someone try to skateboard off the roof, or have a liberal try to defend islam as a religion of peace...both funny, both going to end up with someone dazed and confused.

You must be prepared - not just by knowing your subject. Facts, figures, reason won't get you too far. You have to be prepared for the whole experience. This is actually where the entertainment value comes in. Merely crushing someone's position with logic and data isn't much fun and doesn't take too long. You have to be prepared for the typical tactics used by liberals in debates/arguments.

First, you are never going to debate just one issue. As soon as you pin a liberal down with irrefutable facts and logic, they will deflect off and change the subject. We see that even in the short example in this article. Nailed on bammy being raised a muslim, the liberal deflects off into a previous article, completely different topic - all just to put their opponent on the defensive. The author here artfully addresses that, then smoothly transitions back to the original topic. You really have 3 choices when such a tangent comes up. Allow the liberal to drift off into that area if you feel prepared to defeat them on that topic too. Or you can rebound them back into the original topic smoothly as this author did. Or you can simply call them out on the attempted topic switch, a more aggressive and confrontational approach. Somewhat related to this is the strawman fallacy. Liberals will keep trying to reframe the debate and steer you into having to defending something else.

There are a number of falacies in logical argument, and if you debate enough liberals you'll see nearly all of them hauled out and tried on for size. Some typical ones you should be prepared for:

Ad Hominem attacks. This is how you'll know you are winning an argument with a liberal. In particular, if this liberal is not a friend, expect them sooner or later (probably sooner) to get around to a very personal attack against you.

Bandwagon argument. Liberals buy in to the liberal agenda and outlook. They get cloistered and only really accept information from other liberals. Pretty soon they convince themselves everyone agrees and feels this way on a topic. So when you don't, they'll come at you with this bandwagon theme - "But *everyone* knows xyz..." So? Everyone knew the world was flat. Everyone knew man couldn't fly.

Similar to that is the appeal to authority fallacy. Rather than the masses, they'll simply pick one "expert" that agrees with them and use that example over and over. Experts are wrong all the time. Experts built the Titanic. Experts said we were entering an ice age in the 1970s. Experts said Verrazano Narrows bridge was a good design. But of course to a liberal, their expert is better than your expert.

They'll try to "appeal to the stone" - simply ignore and dismiss anything they disagree with. You'll see this often if discussing illegals. They simple ignore all the detrimental effects.

Another goodie liberals will trot out, probably as a side-effect of their bandwagon argument, is begging the question. Since they believe "everyone" knows xyz and agrees with them, many times their arguments simple start from the point of assuming their position is correct.

Then there's cherry picking. Just using the facts and tidbits that support their viewpoint. You'll see this is in the climate debate too.

Then there's the echo chamber fallacy. We see that in this article. The liberal refused to accept the author's information and instead came back with it labeled as "his opinion." Liberals rarely accept information from anyone other than other liberals. It conflicts with their own indoctrination and world-view. It starts to make their whole world view crumble.

Then there's the "Ergo Decedo" argument. Often tied in with the ad hominem attack. If you agree with someone, and that someone has ever said or done anything controversial then you are guilty too. "What, you raised your hand to ask a question? Hitler raised his right hand, you must be a fascist!" Yes, it really is that silly at times.

There's also the "goal post move." As you beat down a liberal with facts and figures they'll claim that doesn't really prove anything. "So what if socialism has failed before...So what if socialism has actually failed 100% of the time...it hasn't been tried everywhere by everyone yet!" Yes, really that simple. No amount of contradicting evidence is ever enough for the truly indoctrinated.

Oh, and one other popular one with liberals, the non-sequitur. Honestly, sometimes you just cannot fathom how their minds work, how they can link certain things together. Or we could toss in it's cousin the "red herring" - where they just pull in random sh... er "stuff" which kind of goes along with deflecting off onto other issues once they are losing on this one.