A simple rule is to never accept their basic premise.
Racist - Anyone winning an argument with a liberal.
Fascist - Anyone winning an argument with a liberal.
Homophobe - Anyone winning an argument with a liberal.
Nazi - Anyone winning an argument with a liberal.
Xenophobe - Anyone winning an argument with a liberal.
Liberals skip around so much that it’s almost impossible to pin them down on anything. Listened to Bongino debate a leftist the other day, and every time Bongino tried to make an opening the leftist had already pivoted to 3 totally new and different claims.
This tactic forces the conservative to now have to “win” arguments on 3 new things just to bring the leftist back to the original argument.
well which is it? Debating liberals? Or debating people that have not taken a political stance yet?
You can not debate MOST liberals- they are mentally ill and don’t realize it, and will never change- period- They are not capable of even understanding the word ‘shame’ - so they will never know how shameful their positions are- MOST Liberals are hard-core lifers-
Now, if you wanna give away an e-book on how to debate independents, then that’s another story- there is at least hope there-
To follow up- You can NOT debate MOST liberals- They don’t follow any rules, they don’t have any shame- and they don’t even know how to be objectively consistent in what they are saying- They are honestly mentally ill- They argue like children- They debate like children- They demand that YOU prove everything you say- and when you do- they move the goalpost and force you to prove all over again- rinse and repeat- and no matter how many facts you throw at them- they cover their ears and yell “Nuh UH!!!!!!!”
You disprove what they are staying, and they resort to childish name calling and STILL insist that their idiotic, unscientific, dis-proven claims are true- aNd them ore you prove it to be false, the more abuse they dish out to you- You can’t win their hearts and minds, they would have to have both in order to do so-
Sorry- but you simply can not debate with MOST liberals-
Thanks, did it.
We are years past arguing with libtards.
We are years past arguing with libtards.
There isn’t only one way to discuss politics.
Arguing - for parties, dueling protest lines, Hannity, etc.
Debating - more serious public discussion, panels, etc.
Persuading - mostly a personal level thing.
Name-calling never helps. But if you can’t resist, then keep it in the Arguing situations only.
Nobody converts one way or the other in the Argument setting and that’s fine. It’s the dog park of politics, just stretching the legs, sniffin’ a few butts and showing some teeth.
Few are converted in debate settings in any sort of real time manner. But good debate performances and related data build a foundation for change in larger audiences over time.
Persuading is something only really effective on a personal level. When you know WHY somebody is or has become misguided politically then you have a much better chance of driving the discussion in a direction which might hit home.
Adults often have simple but weak reasons for being Dems. Locality or family tradition. Bad life experience perhaps wrongly blamed. And, of course, many simply don’t hear accurate news and don’t have correct or up-to-date definitions of party platforms and policies.
The young have little life experience and don’t care about tradition. The young who are Left are almost always that way due to ubiquitous malpractice of Big Education, Big Entertainment and / or Big Religion.
With the adults you can likely use more logic and plant seeds of truth which their environment had likely been filtering out. Remember, just like with Christianity, you don’t fish for freedom-oriented minds using a hammer.
With kids it is almost entirely emotional. Despite all the great history and data to draw upon, don’t bother trying to convince them that capitalism is good, for example. Dollars and sense mean nothing to someone who has long ago made a moral judgement against whatever the word capitalism means.
Talk instead about freedom, individual choice and the inherently invalid uses of government force.
Even today’s mis-taught kids still have an innate sense that those three things are important in general. If you can’t agree on that, it’s political pearls before swine - move on. If you can agree, then depending on your judgement of their capacities either proceed to the basic civics lesson today’s over-educated/under-learned youth desperately need or just be satisfied with the valuable progress of establishing a common base for later discussions.
Don’t try to win the war in every battle.
And don’t place men above the mission. Lots of people hate Trump or dislike his style for valid and invalid reasons. If the discussion was not already directly about him, then don’t let it veer off and die by trying to convince someone how great he is in your opinion. Persuade at the issue and platform levels. If your target is persuaded and mature, they have a good chance of voting correctly despite personal dislikes. If they are either unpersuaded on the mission or immature in general then trying to sell them the man they don’t like would not have worked anyway.
It’s all about asking questions and being nice