Replies

. Always force them to define their terms. That's the true weak point in all of this. The Left has long ago hijacked the very language that we use to frame our debates. It's the first thing we need to take back in these debates. And it's a killer tactic. Takes a forceful and confident debater to pull it off.

Jiminy Crickets, Noumenon, are you a mind-reader? I have used that phrasing (he who defines the terms wins the argument) in personal relationships since college on. :) Since the anti's cannot defend their terms in an intelligent fashion, we can lead the argument to a proper definition.

That is why I use 'lookism' as an argument against the AWB, and believe that the only way to undermine the antis is to use their language against them. Thus 'human right' since that is a buzzword of the UN.

Replying to both your posts, I agree. A first-principles argument based on the fundamental right to self-defense is genuine button-pusher. I see the goal as twofold - to address the audience and the unconvinced (the primary goal) and to expose the moral bankruptcy of the opposition.

"What's your life worth?" "What's your family's life worth?" "If you don't care about your life, what about your kids' lives?" "You may feel that it's OK to sacrifice your life and your family's lives to the first thug who demands them, but I care about MY life and MY family - and you have NO right to make that morally bankrupt decision for me."