Posted on 04/29/2016 5:00:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
I like it.
Thanks to the author for the summary of approach.
The old line is, ‘if allowed to define the terms, you should win any debate’.
Layne’s Law of Debate:
Every debate is over the definition of a word. Or
Every debate eventually degenerates into debating the definition of a word. Or
Once a debate degenerates into debating the definition of a word, the debate is debatably over.
“Most of the time you will not be up against a well read, hard core “progressive”.
The vast majority of “progressives” have never really thought out what they profess. They are just following what they percieve as the “popular” position.”
My observation as well. This had to be explained to me a couple of decades ago as a wise employee of mine and I discussed “the List” of companies to boycott in the Dillon’s reloading flyer.
Excellent column by Dr. Adams.
However I am shocked that we are already past 20 posts and nobody has ridiculed the source with the “Clownhall.com” graphic.
Don’t ask questions. Don’t answer questions.
Tell your opponent: “If you have a point, then go ahead and make it. I’m not here to be cross-examined by you.”
The better ones that I used in Asia, are a combo of squat toilet and shower.
The only issue I had with them is, you must maintain situational awareness of your feet.
A very economical use of space.
For every serious foe, there are numerous ‘swing voters’ on the issues and influencing them with the truth should often be the focus.
The undecideds decide much, let’s not let them remain low-info.
Consider the cowboy method, speak S-l-o-w-l-y and think FAST.
Good.
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
Time for debate with these people is long since past. The time for lead is swiftly approaching.
I am the same way.
” It is your mere opposition that makes you so and has nothing to do with logic or consistency.”
Absolutely true. The self-assumed placement upon a morally superior pedestal is what underlies their inability to complete an argument. Even if you obliterate a lib on logic, there’ still that superior moral position they are sure they come from. And it transcends logic. There’s no argument to lose that kicks them off their self-assumed position of moral superiority. “Feelings”.
They’re right even if they can’t explain it. You’re wrong even if you CAN explain it.
When you answer rhetoric with dialectics, you ALWAYS lose.
Rhetoric is not an engagement with an equal in a mutual search for truth (that’s called dialectics).
Rhetoric is a punch in the face. Punch back harder.
It’s important. These guys are in a pre-war mode. The more we wuss out (”Democrats are the real racists”) the more aggressive they become. They are a minority, but once they start shooting, they can cause a lot of damage.
In short, you can’t “answer their arguments” because they’re not arguing. They’re attacking. If you don’t see the difference, you’re doomed to defeat.
"Look at that SS guard, Moishe! We REALLY exposed the paucity of his ideology!"
Excellent.
L
Bkmkd, thanks for the ping.
Kaslin: Excellent article. Thank you.
TSOA: Thank you for the ping.
The sign on the wall needs to be fixed by changing the descriptive word from “inclusive” to “REPULSIVE”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.